DAR (MEMBER): This appeal is directed against two judgments of the High Court dated Maghar 28, 2002 & Baisakh 13,2003, by the former of which an application for execution of the decree by the latter of which an application for amendment of the decree was rejected.

(2) The appellant is the owner of a house at Panjthirthi in the City of Jammu which has been for a long time in occupation of the respondent. In an ejectment suit brought by the appellant against the respondent, the Munsiff of Jammu made a decree dated Jeth 28, 2000, under which the appellant was entitled to eject the respondent from the said house subject to the payment of a sum of Rs:. 300/- to the respondent within two months of the decree. This decree was subsequently amended by the Munsiff and the sum of Rs. 300/- was raised to Rs.720/- to be paid within two months of the amendment dated Bhadoom 15, 2000.

(3) Against the judgment and the decree of the Munsiff appeals were made both by the appellant and by the respondent to the District Judge of Jammu who in the end dismissed the appellants appeal and allowed the respondents appeal in part. The operative part of the judgment of the District Judge dated chet 8, 2000 is as follows.

"For the foregoing reasons the decree awarded by the Court of first instance is amended to the limited extent that instead of Rs. 720/- as directed by the Court of first instance, the plaintiff will pay Rs. 928/6/- before ejecting the defendant. Both the appeals will be considered who have been disposed of in the light of the order made above. The parties will bear their own coats so far as this Court is concerned."

In pursuance of this judgment of the District Judge a formal decree was prepared expressing the operative part of the judgment in these words:

"Gist of the order - Both the appeals are decided in this way that the amount of Rs. 720/- fixed by the trial Court be increased to Rs. 928/6/-.The rest of the judgment is kept intact. The decree will now be like this that decree for ejectment of the house and land at Jammu Mohalla Panjtirthi .... .... .... .... ...... .... .... .... .... .... is passed with full costs of the original Court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant appellant with the condition that the plaintiff will pay Rs. 928/6X within two months to the defendant and then he can get him ejected. The amount shall have to be paid before ejectment. Parties will bear their own costs of appeal."

It is obvious that the condition of ejectment in the operative part of the judgment, and in the operative part of the decree is differently expressed, whereas the operative part of the judgment requires that "appellant will pay Rs. 92B/6/- before ejecting the respondent," the operative part of the decree requires that "the appellant will pay Rs. 928/6/- within two months to the respondent, and then he can get him ejected" and this discrepancy in the language of the judgment and of the decree has been a source of stumbling block in the way of the appellant In obtaining possession of the house and has been a source of much unnecessary and fruitless litigation.

(4) The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs,. 720/- for payment to the respondent within two months of the decree of the Munsiff but the increased amount which the appellant was required to deposit under the judgment and decree of the District Judge was not deposited within two months of the decree but was deposited within three months of that date.

(5) After making an unsuccessful application to the District Judge for extension of time to deposit the increased decretal amount under S. 148, Civil P. C., the appellant made an application for the execution of the decree to the Munsiff which application after being disallowed by him and being allowed by the District Judge in appeal was finally rejected by the High Court In a second appeal by its judgment dated Maghar 28, 2002.

(6) The appellant thereafter presented an applic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document