The executing court must execute decrees as rendered and cannot alter them; objections must be raised under prescribed provisions, and erroneous decrees remain binding until properly challenged.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 03.02.2024/05.03.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hazaribag in Execution Case No.04 of 2023 contained in Annexure-3 arising out of Title Suit No.81 of 2022.

3. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the plaintiff in said Title Suit No.81 of 2022 which has been instituted as per direction upon the defendant to execute and register sale deed with respect to the lands measuring an area of 0.06 acres appertaining to R.S. Plot No.45 of Khata No.196 situated at village – Cantonment, Thana No.157, District – Hazaribag along with pucca house standing thereon. He submits that the said suit was contested and it was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on contest and it has been ordered and decreed that it is allowed on contest without cost in favour of the plaintiff and defendant was directed to execute the sale deed for suit land mentioned in Schedule-A in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff within three months failing which the same will be executed through the process of Court and possession be also delivered through Court. He further submits that against the said judgment dated 09.01.2023 of the learned Court, the judgment debtor has not preferred any appeal. Thereafter the execution case No.4/2023 was instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff in which the learned Court has issued the direction by the order dated 07.10.2023 directing to deposit the cost and the Nazir was authorized to get the sale deed executed in favour of the decree holder on behalf of the Court. He submits that later on 10.10.2023, the cash was deposited which has been recorded in the order dated 10.10.2023. He then submits that by the order dated 03.02.2024/05.03.2024 all of a sudden the learned Court has passed the order directing the petitioner/decree holder to file a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag for removal of the prohibition upon the suit land, thereafter the Court will pass appropriate order for order of the same. He submits that the said is not in accordance with law and it is well settled that once the decree is passed, the executing court has got no power to alter the decree. He submits that once the judgment and decree attained the finality the learned Court was bound to execute the same, however, the wrong order has been passed only on the ground that under Section 22A of the REGISTRATION ACT in light of letter of Sub Registrar, the land is restricted to be sold.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtor/opposite party submits that the learned Court has passed the said order and he has nothing to say on the same.

5. It is an admitted position that the Title Suit No.81 of 2022 was instituted for direction to execute the sale deed which was decreed by judgment dated 09.01.2023 in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and the direction has been issued to the judgment debtor/opposite party to execute the same within three months failing which the same will be executed through the process of Court and possession be also delivered through Court even it was not complied with the Execution Case No.4 of 2023 was instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff herein and the learned Court by order dated 07.10.2023 has been pleased to direct to deposit the cost and the Nazir was authorized to execute the deed in favour of the decree holder on behalf of the Court and further all of a sudden on 03.02.2024/05.03.2024 the learned Court directed the petitioner to move before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag for taking permi