Heard Mr. Ayush Aditya for the revisionist and Mr. Rohit Roy for the contesting opposite parties.

2. The instant revision arises from an order dated 6.8.2010 in Execution Case No. 5 of 2008 (Nani Gopal Goswami vs. Devendra Nath Goswami & Ors.) passed by Sub-judge-V, Dhanbad.

3. The revisionist is a decree-holder In Title Suit No. 105 of 2001 (Nani Gopal Goswami vs. Devendra Nath Goswami & Ors.). The claim in the original suit was for a decree of declaration of a title, confirmation of possession over the land described in schedule appended to the plaint, and also a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from changing the nature and character of the suit property by digging foundation etc. on Plot No. 2018. The suit was decreed, vide judgment dated 21.7.2007 passed by Additional Sub-judge-V, Dhanbad.

4. The grievance of the revisionist is that he filed execution case for executing a decree of injunction and declaration in Title Suit No. 105 of 2001. The contesting opposite party filed his objection under Section 47 C.P.C. which was allowed and the execution case was dismissed on the ground that a declaratory decree cannot be executed under Order 21. There is no provision to execute a declaratory decree and a separate execution cannot be instituted.

5. Submission of Mr. Ayush Aditya that the findings of the court below is absolutely wrong since Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. specifically provides that a decree for injunction can be executed if the judgment-debtor willfully failed to obey it. The decree may be enforced by detention in the civil prison. Learned counsel has emphatically stated that the findings recorded by the court below that there is no provision under Order 21 for execution .of a decree for injunction, is absolutely wrong since Rule 32 of Order 21 C.P.C. specifically provides for execution of a decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction. Thus, by allowing the objection under Section 47 C.P.C., the court below has erred in law and, therefore, the order should set aside on the ground that the executing court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and thereby a material illegality and irregularity has been committed.

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, Mr. Rohit Roy, has challenged the maintainability of the revision. He states that rejecting the objection under Section 47 C.P.C. does not amount to 'case decided' and, therefore, the revision is not maintainable.

7. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsel and I have gone through the record. So far, the question regarding maintainability of Civil Revision is concerned, I am in agreement with the submission made by counsel for the opposite parties, since allowing the objection under Section 47 amounts to deciding the question in issue that the decree cannot be executed. Finally, the execution proceedings have been dismissed. ,In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the Civil Revision is maintainable.

8. The next question arises as to whether the court was correct in its approach while allowing objections under Section 47 C.P.C. that there is no provision under Order 21 to execute a declaratory decree, the court has specifically stated that there is no provision under Order 21 for' execution of a declaratory decree. The argument of Mr. Aditya Ayush, regarding Rule 32 which relates to breach of injunction and the consequent detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison in execution of the decree for Injunction, is very well provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. However, a bare perusal of the execution case preferred by the revisionist and the prayer in the execution case, evidently, the court was correct in its approach to the following effect:

"The prayer in execution application is by confirming the possession of the decree-holder over Plot Nos. 2018, 2019 and 2017 by deputation of an Amin and on measurement in the pres