Point of Law: Errors on part of judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing laws delay and bringing bad name to judicial system.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Petitioner was a tenant of the respondent. A civil suit was instituted by the respondent for petitioner’s eviction. Concurrent judgments and decrees were passed by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned First Appellate Court ordering eviction of the petitioner. These judgments and decrees were affirmed in Regular Second Appeal No. 104/2022 (Gama Ram Vs. Tara Dutt) decided on 13.05.2022. The respondent/decree holder thereafter set out to execute the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Primarily with the assertion that khasra number of the suit premises was incorrectly mentioned in the judgment and decree and on that basis contending that the decree was in-executable, the judgment debtor (tenant) filed objections to the execution petition. These objections were dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 19.05.2023, hence, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the judgment debtor/tenant.

2. Facts

2(i) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was tenant under the respondent. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 96-K/1 of 2011 on 24.11.2011 seeking ejectment of the petitioner from two storeys out of three storeyed building situated in village Shalaghat, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. The said civil suit was decreed on 19.04.2021 by the learned Trial Court in following manner:-

“24. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion and the findings on the issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs, whereby the defendant is directed to vacate the suit premises i.e. two storeys out of three storeyed building situated on the land bearing Khasra No. 220/212/5 situated in village Shalaghat, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. within the space of one month from the date of this judgment. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file after due completion be consigned to the record room.”

The above judgment and decree was affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court on 25.02.2022 and by this Court on 13.05.2022.

2(ii) In the execution petition filed by the respondent-decree holder for enforcement of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the petitioner/judgment debtor invoked Order 21 Rule23(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) taking following objections:-

“1. That present decree is not executable in present circumstances.

2. That the Ld. Executing Court cannot go beyond four walls of qua decree as passed in Civil Suit No. 96- K/1 of 2011.

3. That qua decree as passed by Ld. Civil Court with respect to Khasra No.220/212/5 already stands satisfied and judgment debtor is not in possession of any building in qua khasra number and there is not need to execute the same.”

Gist of the objections raised by the petitioner/judgment debtor was that incorrect khasra number was mentioned in the judgment and decree. The actual Khasra Number of the suit premises was 212/202/5, whereas the number mentioned in the judgment and decree was 220/212/5. It was put-forth that the petitioner was not in possession of any building over Khasra No.220/212/5. The judgment & decree qua this number stood satisfied.

2(iii) Learned Trial Court dismissed the objections vide order dated 14.05.2023 holding that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take benefit of incorrect khasra number mentioned in the judgment & decree. Accordingly, warrant of possession was issued.

In the above factual background this revision petition has been filed by the judgment debtor.

3. Contentions

Learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor asserted that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. In the decree, suit premises were described to be situated over Khasra No. 220/212/5. This khasra number is not in possession of the petitioner/judgment debtor, therefore, there is no question of enforcement of the decree against the petitioner qua this khasra number. Decree qua t