1. This revision is directed against the order of execution and raises some important questions of law In order to appreciate the questions involved, it is necessary to give brief facts.

2. Petitioner herein is the judgment-debtor and the respondent No. 1 is the decree-holder. A decree for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner arid respondent No. 2 to vacate from the suit property and a decree for permanent injunction "restraining the defendants from causing and interference in the possession of the plaintiff with respect to the suit property was passed by the trial court. An appeal was filed against the said judgment and decree before the Sub Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. The appeal also came to be dismissed on 15-12-1988. The judgment and decree of the trial court assumed finality. An execution was taken against the decree by the respondent No. 1 herein. It was prayed in the execution application that the judgment debtors refuse to obey the decree, therefore the decree may be executed by sending the judgment debtor to the civil prison and by giving possession to the decree holder. On this execution application coming before the trial court, the trial court issued a notice to the judgment-debtors and, among the judgment-debtors, the petitioner alone contested the execution matter before the trial court. She filed an application before the trial court on 14-9-1985 raising three objections to the execution of the decree namely,

(a) That the decree under execution has been obtained fraudulently on false and frivolous grounds;

(b) That a suit for cancellation of the decree under execution is already filed and a temporary injunction is issued against the decree-holder and he is directed to maintain status quo;

(c) That the decree was not executable.

3. The trial court, which was the executing court also overruled these objections and held that the decree was executable and ordered execution. On appeal the 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar held that in view of the amendment in the Civil Procedure Code, any order passed by the executing court under section 47 is not appealable. Therefore the appeal was held not maintainable. Hence this revision

4. Appearing for the petitioner, Judgment--debtor, Mr. Mohd. shaffi has submitted that the decree was not executable because the decree-holder was out of possession. Therefore, even after having obtained the decree, he was bound to file a fresh suit against the judgment-debtors for the recovery of possession. He, however, conceded that such a decree was executable under (2) R. 32 of the C.P.C. The learned counsel contended that initially the relief claimed by the decree holder was not tenable inasmuch as the decree holder was rut of possession; therefore a suit for mandatory injunction or perpetual injunction would not lie and could not be decreed. He has also raised objection as regards valuation fixed in the suit. I am afraid that both these contentions are misplaced at this stage. The executing court cannot go beyond the decree is the settled principle of law which flows from section 38 of the C P C. In other words it means that the executing court has to execute the decree as it stands It can, however in exceptional cases refuse to execute the decree, for illustration, it can refuse to execute a decree, if it is passed against a dead person. In that even the decree itself will be a nullity It can also refuse to execute a decree if the court passing a decree had not the inherent jurisdiction to pass a decree. It can only decide the matters which relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree under section 47 of the C P C Mode of the execution in respect of decrees for mandatory and perpetual injunctions is given in 0. 21 R 32 CPC. Sub Rule (1) and sub Rule (5) of the said rules is relevant for our purpose. These tow sub rules read as under:

1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document