The executing court can interpret the decree sought to be executed and refer to reliefs sought in the plaint and discussion in the judgment to ascertain the true import of the decree. Once a decree of perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction has become final, the judgment-debtor is required to obey the decree.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This petition challenges the order dated 30.9.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar in C.R.P.No.1 of 2010. By the said order, the learned revisional court rejected the application of the judgment-debtor-petitioner to stay the further proceeding of the Execution Case No.24 of 2008 of the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Keonjhar.

2. The opposite parties as plaintiffs instituted C.S.No.65 of 2005 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Keonjhar for declaration of right, title, interest in respect of the suit schedule land, recovery of possession and permanent injunction impleading the petitioner as defendant. The learned trial court decreed the suit on 10.12.2007. Thereafter the decree was drawn up on 21.12.2007. The ordering portion of the judgment reads as follows:-

“The suit is decreed in part on contest against the defendant without costs. The right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit plot is declared and their possession in respect thereof is confirmed. The defendant is permanently restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit plot in any manner whatsoever.”

3. While the matter stood thus, the opposite parties levied Execution Case No.24 of 2008 for delivery of possession of suit property through process of court. The petitioner filed a show cause stating therein that since no recovery of possession was granted, the decree holders can execute the decree of permanent injunction and, as such the petition is not maintainable. The learned trial court came to hold that when a decree for right, title, interest and confirmation of possession has been passed, execution petition for recovery of possession can be made. Held so, the learned executing court allowed the application on 27.2.2010. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed C.R.P. No.1 of 2010 before the learned District Judge, Keonjhar. In the said case, the petitioner filed an application to stay the further proceeding of the execution case. By order dated 30.9.2010, the revisional court dismissed the said application. With this factual scenario, the present petition has been filed.

4. Criticizing the order, Mr.Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court has not passed any decree for recovery of possession. In view of the same, the executing court cannot go behind the decree and direct the Court Amin to recover possession from the petitioner. The suit schedule land is not identifiable. The learned revisional court committed a manifest illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner to stay the further proceeding of the execution case since the same will render the revision application infructuous. He cited the decisions in the case of Sri Biswanath Sahoo and others Vrs. Sri Manoj Tanmay Mohan and others, AIR 2006 Orissa 94, M/s. Century Textiles Industries Ltd. Vrs. Deepak Jain and another, 2009 (I) OLR (SC)-731 and Bijaya Kumar Swain Vrs. Harekrushna Nayak, 2008 (Supp.2) OLR 800.

5. Per contra, Mr.Panigrahi, learned counsel for the opposite parties supported the order passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar. He relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of Biswanath Vrs. Smt. Uttara Bewa and others, AIR 1988 Orissa 9, Gopal Barik Vrs. Bhima Barik and another, 1993 (I) OLR 139 and Chhatia Palei and another Vrs. Additional District Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Nayagarh and others, 2009 (I) OLR 983.

6. In Biswanath (supra), this Court held that ordinarily the executing court cannot go behind the decree. But it is within the competence of the executing court to interpret the decree sought to be executed and for doing so the court can refer to reliefs sought in the plaint and discussion in the judgment to ascertain the true import of the decree. The same view was taken in Gopal Barik (supra) and Chhatia Palei (supra).

7. The decisions cited by Mr.Samantaray, learned counsel for the pet