SADANANDAN Vs. GEORGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. He obtained a decree against the respondents. Alleging that the respondents are violating the prohibitory injunction decree, he approached the executing court with an execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, "CPC"). Executing court by an elaborate order dismissed the execution petition finding that the decree holder (revision petitioner) has failed to prove that he is entitled to an order of the court for fixing boundary to the decree schedule property in the guise of executing the decree.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below should have allowed the execution petition in its entirety. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the prayer in the petition saying that it is beyond the scope of the decree. The relevant provision in the CPC is Order 21 Rule 32. It reads as follows:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents took me through the prayers in the execution petition. The decree holder has requested for the indulgence of the court in preventing entry of the judgment debtors to the decree schedule property and also from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner. Further prayer is that the decree holder should be allowed to construct a fence around the property through the intervention of the court. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this part of the prayer in the execution petition is beyond the scope of the suit and the decree. I agree with that contention. The suit is one for permanent prohibitory injunction and there was no prayer made or allowed for fixation of boundary. So there cannot be a dispute that a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction cannot be transformed into one for fixation of boundary.