The duty of the executing court to construe the decree, find out the true effect of the decree, and enforce and interpret the decree in a manner that shortens the litigation between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This petition is instituted against the order dated 21.6.2014 rendered by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nurpur in Execution Petition No.14 of 2007.

2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner had filed a Civil Suit bearing No.134/2002 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-1, Nurpur, District Kangra. The Civil Suit was decreed by the trial court on 28.10.2006. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under:

“In view of my findings on the issues above, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is hereby decreed. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to 1/3rd share in the insurance amount of Rs. 3,51,474/- assessed under Army Group Insurance Fund Scheme, whereas, defendants No.1 and 2 are having 2/3rd share, therein with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to withdraw 1/3rd share of the plaintiff in the insurance amount being payable to the legal heirs of late Shri Yashbir Singh. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and the file after its due completion be consigned to record room.”

3. The petitioner was held entitled to 1/3rd share in the insurance amount of Rs. 3,51,474/- assessed under Army Group Insurance Fund Scheme. Judgment debtors No.1 and 2 were held entitled to 2/3rd share with permanent injunction restraining them not to withdraw 1/3rd share of petitioner in the insurance amount. Petitioner has also moved an application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Judgment Debtor No.3 was restrained from releasing 1/3rd share of the petitioner in the insurance amount of Rs. 3,51,474/- on 13.8.2002.

4. Petitioner filed an Execution Petition bearing No.14/2007 for the execution of the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2006. The Execution Petition was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 21.6.2014. Hence, the present petition.

5. Petitioner’s son died in Kargil in the year 2000. The family of the deceased was entitled to insurance amount under the Army Group Insurance Fund Scheme. A sum of Rs. 3,51,474/- was sanctioned. Petitioner was held entitled to 1/3rd share. According to the decree, she has been held entitled to 1/3rd amount out of Rs. 3,51,474.

6. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) has framed the issues in Execution Petition on 7.9.2009. In order to prove issue No.3, Sh. Vipan Mahajan, Branch Manager, PNB Jassur has led his evidence by way of affidavit. According to him, the matter was got investigated after the receipt of judgment and decree. Account No.3601 belonged to Ramzan Khan and Rashidan Bibi. No account existed in the name of judgment debtors No.1 and 2. According to him, a sum of Rs. 3,52,474/- was sent to the bank vide order No. 728963 dated 29.7.2002. It was found to have been credited in account No.3601 and information to this effect was given to the decree holder. However, in his cross-examination, he has deposed that the amount which was credited to account No.3601 belonged to Ramzan Khan and Rashidan Bibi. The cheque was returned to the Army. He has also admitted that account No.3601 in the Punjab National Bank at Jassur was not in the name of Dimple.

7. The decree holder has deposed that she was to be paid 1/3rd share in the amount. However, the judgment debtor No.3 has not released her share. She is an old lady and senior citizen. She has also admitted that bank has informed that the bank account number was incorrectly given.

8. The letter sent to decree holder is Ex.PW-1/B. The copy of pass-book of account of Dimple is mark “A”. The Executing Court has not executed the decree only on the pretext that this account number as per mark “A” was not given in the judgment.

9. According to Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, the Army has already released the amount in favour of the family members of the de