APPIAMMA Vs. LAWRANCE DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against an order passed on I. A. 12 by the trial Court directing break open the lock if the lock is found to be put on the portion to be delivered in the execution of a decree for possession.

(2.) ). Prima facie I feel that the C. R. P. is not maintainable against such an order. Section 115, reads as follows :

(3.) THE wordings used is any case decided ordering break open is certainly not a case to be decided and it is not a decree at all. It is only a formal procedural order to give effect to a decree for possession already passed and which decree has become final. So long as the decree remains, the executing court is bound to direct delivery of possession and if the judgment debtor thinks that he can avoid delivery of possession by putting a lock over the premises, it is like trying to hide from the sun within the umbrella. The Court cannot see method being adopted to nullify the decree passed and nullity the delivery warrant. Naturally and necessarily therefore break open of the lock is permitted and directed by the executing Court. So also the grant of police help to execute the decree. In fact, Rule 220 sub-clause (2) of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice prescribes the method of execution and if any resistance was made to remove such resistance even with the help of the police. Rule 220 sub-clause (2) reads as follows :