The Execution Court must adhere to the decree's specifications while evaluating claims made in an Execution Petition.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner filed O.P.No.268/2021 before the learned Family Court, Pala, against the respondents for return of her gold ornaments and money, which was then settled between them, under the provisions of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); and thereupon, the learned Court decreed the Original Petition, based on the same.

2. Sri.Jacob E. Simon – learned counsel for the petitioner, today asserted that, as per the decree, his client is entitled, inter alia, to the gold ornaments mentioned in Schedules B and C thereof; but that the learned Family Court has refused to accede to it and has proclaimed the sale of the property of the respondents for a sum that it has fixed. He argued that this is illegal and unlawful; and therefore, that his client has been constrained to approach this Court.

3. Sri.N.M.Madhu – learned counsel for the respondents, however, refuted the afore submissions saying that, the learned Family Court has only gone by the Execution Petition filed by the petitioner, namely Ext.P2; and hence, that it cannot be found to be in error. He impelled a further contention that the Execution Petition itself is not maintainable.

4. When we examine Exts.P5 and P10, the former is a part of the Proceeding Sheet of the learned Court; while, the latter is an order it has issued. The sum total of the same is that the learned Court has fixed a particular sum, which it has found to be claimed for by the petitioner in Ext.P2 Execution Petition. It has taken a view that, when a certain amount is specified in the Execution Petition, a larger sum than that cannot be sought for by the petitioner.

5. However, the specific argument of the petitioner is that the Execution Petition does not travel in conformity with the decree because, the latter has allowed her to recover the gold ornaments in specie.

6. We are slightly confused by the afore assertion of the petitioner because, as rightly argued by Sri.N.M.Madhu, prima facie from the Execution Petition, one can only see that the petitioner has sought for return of certain sums of money and not the gold in specie. Whether she did so in conformity with the decree or otherwise, are not issues that this Court can decide at this stage. If she had any such case, it was always open to her to have moved the learned Family Court appropriately, including under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment. Of course, the question whether the Execution Petition itself is maintainable is one to be decided by the learned Family Court, if impelled before it; and therefore, does not require us to speak on.

7. As matters now stand, the learned Family Court appears to be proceeding as per the requirements and claim in the Execution Petition. We cannot find fault with the learned Court in having done so.

8. That said, no doubt, it is a fundamental principle that no Executing Court can go behind the decree; but in this case, the learned Family Court appears to be moving along with the claim as made in the execution proceedings. Indubitably, unless the petitioner is able to have her plea in the Execution Petition varied or modified in terms of law, we cannot find the present proceedings to be in error. Of course, this will not denude the rights of the petitioner to invoke any other remedy as may be available to her in law, including under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.

In the afore circumstances, we dismiss this Original Petition.