Hemlata Chelleng and Others vs Guna Kanta Saikia

U.L. Bhat, C.J.—The revision Petitioners are the Judgment debtors who suffered a (sic) is Title Suit No. 39 of 1974 on the file of Munsiff, North (sic). The decree was obtained by the Respondent herein. The Respondent filed Title Execution Case No. 6/85 seeking to enforce decree. Revision Petitioners filed a petition raising their objection and preying that the execution case may be dismissed. The learned Munsiff overruled the objection and allowed the execution to proceed. This order is now challenged.

The suit filed by the Plaintiffs was for two reliefs, namely, permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the revision Petitioners from interfering with the Respondent�s peaceful possession of the (sic) described in the plaint. The second relief is mandatory injunction directing the revision Petitioners to remove the house erected by them unlawfully in the Plaintiffs land. The trial Court decree the suit as prayed granting injunction restraining the revision (sic) from interfering with the Respondent''s peaceful (sic) the land and mandatory injunction for removal of the house (sic) land. In the relief column of the execution case Respondent (sic) that the revision Petitioners have not vacated the land according the decree and prayed that a writ may be issued and the petition may be evicted from the land decreed and khas possession (sic) given to the decree-holder.

The above relief claimed in the execution petition does not arise from the decree sought to be executed If there has been (sic) violation of the prohibitory injunction decree, the enforcement (sic) be according to the provisions of Rule 32 of Order 21 CPC (sic) the decree holder wanted to (sic) the decree relating to (sic) injunction, he should have made a specific prayer in that (sic) The decree proceeded on the basis that the decree-holder is (sic) possession of the land. The execution proceeding proceeded on (sic) basis that the Judgment-debtor is in possession of the land. The (sic) no decree for eviction against the revision Petitioners. There (sic) the Respondent could not ask the Executing Court to issue a (sic) to the bailiff to evict the revision Petitioners. In the circumstance (sic) the impugned order is totally unsustainable and is set aside. (sic) executing Court is directed to examine any other matter arising (sic) the execution case afresh in accordance with law. The revision (sic) petition is thus allowed. The parties are directed to appear (sic) the Executing Court on 19.2.92.