The executing Court has the power under Order XXI Rule 32(5) to order necessary demolitions to enforce a decree for permanent injunction despite such powers not being explicitly stated in the original decree.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. CMP No.578 of 2017 has been filed assailing the order dated 15^th February, 2017 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basudevpur in Execution Case No.4 of 2013, whereby the execution case was dropped holding that the decree for demarcation is not executable.

3. CMP No.1358 of 2017 has been filed to set aside the Commissioner’s report dated 26^th March, 2016 and order dated 2^nd February, 2017, whereby the Commissioner’s report was accepted.

4. Since both the CMPs arise out of Execution Case No.4 of 2013 and relates to a chain of events in accepting the Commissioner’s report as well as dropping of the execution case accepting the said Commissioner’s report, the same are taken up together for convenience. The parties are described as per their status in the execution case.

5. C.S. No.22 of 2009 was filed by the D.Hrs for demarcation of the suit property as well as for injunction. The suit has been decreed vide judgment dated 30^th March, 2013 with the following order:

“The suit of the plaintiffs be and same is decreed on contest against the Def. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 and on ex-parte against Def. No. 8. Both parties are at liberty to get the boundary line of the suit property demarcated as per prayer in the plaint, amicably within a period of 3(three) months failing which, the parties may take resort to the process of this Court for the said purpose. Once boundary lines of the suit plots are duly demarcated, the contesting defendants will be permanently injuncted from entering into the suit property and from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. But in the present facts and circumstances, there is no order as to cost.”

6. As amicable demarcation of the property could not be possible within the time stipulated, the D.Hrs filed Execution Case No.4 of 2013. The J.Drs filed an application under Section 47 CPC , which was registered as I.A. No.201 of 2016. The said application was rejected vide order dated 6^th February, 2017. Thereafter, Plaintiff in C.S. No.83 of 2015 filed an application to be impleaded as party to the execution case (CMA No.1486 of 2015), which was rejected. In due course, learned executing Court appointed a Civil Court Commissioner for demarcation of the property, who submitted his report on 26^th March, 2016. Relevant portion of the said report reads as under:

“Then the DHR No.3 identified me the decretal plot which is to be demarcated and supplied me the original village M.S. map of Mouza Apartipur. I was directed by the Hon’ble Court for demarcation of southern side of ‘Ka’ schedule land, eastern side of ‘Kha’ schedule land and Eastern and Southern side of ‘Ga’ schedule land as per plaint. I verified the records and original village map and started my measurement work on the field. By checking from various fix point nearby the suit plot and finally I demarcated the Southern side of ‘Ka’ schedule property, Eastern side of ‘Kha’ schedule property and Eastern and Southern side of ‘Ga’ schedule property. The DHRs and his labourers put pucca pillars on Southern side of ‘Ka’ schedule property and Southern side of ‘Ga’ schedule property. But the eastern side of ‘Kha’ & ‘Ga’ schedule property though I have demarcated, but the DHRs could not pillaring on it because on the demarcating line the JDRs have encroached some portion and created building house and some thatched house over the decretal plot. the thatched house are used as cowshed and kitchen which I have clearly shown in my demarcation map. The DHRs and their labourers put pucca pillars on Southern side of ‘Ka’ & ‘Ga’ schedul