AMAR NATH Vs. SHAKUNTALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 13.3.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in RCA No.31/2009, which the appellant filed against the order of Executing Court dated 7.11.2009. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal can be summarized as under.

(2.) A decree for possession of one room house number 16/711, Gali No.12, Military Road, Bapa Nagar, New Delhi was passed by the learned Civil Judge on 17.3.1986 in favour of the respondent herein Smt. Shakuntala and against one Om Prakash. The execution petition filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 19.11.1996 on the ground that the description of the property, which had been given in the decree, was not sufficient to identify the premises and, therefore, the decree was not executable. The learned executing court took that the view that it could not change or amend the decree nor could it take any fresh evidence to identify the premises. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge was challenged by the decree holder before this Court in Civil Revision No.1062/1998 which came to be disposed of on 11.10.2004. Allowing the Revision Petition, this Court observed that the property had been described as House No. 16/711, Gali No.12, Military Road, Bapa Nagar, New Delhi and there had been no confusion about its identity at any point of time either before the trial court or even in the first appeal which the respondent had filed. It was held that since the description of the property was sufficient to identify it, there was no force in the objection raised by the respondent which had been upheld in the impugned order. This Court accordingly set aside the order dated 19.11.1996 and directed that the decree holder will be at liberty to execute the decree.

(3.) IN my view, the issue as to whether the property subject matter of the decree had been properly described and was identifiable or not stood concluded by this Court vide order dated 11.10.2004, which admittedly was not challenged by the judgment debtor. In view of the order passed by this Court on 11.10.2004, the learned Civil Judge was absolutely justified in issuing warrants of possession with directions that possession of one room shall be given to the decree holder on identification of that room by her. He was also right in directing that in case there is only one room, possession of that room will be given to the decree holder. The learned counsel for the appellant states that he is not aware as to how may room are there in this property.