SWAMI MUKTHANANDA Vs. SRI RAMAKRISHNA THAPOVANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent. The present civil revision petition is preferred by the petitioner against an order passed in E.A.No.4 of 2007 in E.P.No. 63 of 2005 in O.S.No. 1254 of 1994 on the file of the District Court, Karur by order dated 27.2.2007.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were residing at Sri Ramakrishna Ashramam, Pasupa -thipalayam, Karur. Therefore aggrieved against the order passed in E.A.No.4 of 2007 on the file of the District Judge, Karur by order dated 27.2.2007 and the present civil revision petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. is preferred.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the executing Court has failed to pass an execution decree as per the terms of the decree itself rather it has travelled beyond the scope of the decree and passed the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the law is well settled with regard to the proposition that Executing Court can only go by the decree and cannot go behind the decree. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a suit was filed by the respondents Sri Ramakrishna Thapovanam, a Registered Society against one Swami Athmananda and 15 others. The prayer sought in the suit was: - (a) holding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties and educational agency with respect to the suit institutions described in Schedule A and the properties in Schedule B and for a consequential relief of possession and directing the first defendant to hand over charge relating to the suit institutions and properties described in Schedule A and B. (b) directing the first defendant to render a true and proper accounts with regard to the income from the suit properties for the last three years and till he actually handed over charge. (c) granting permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with the right of the plaintiff to manage the suit institutions and properties described in Schedule A and B or collecting any amounts for and on behalf of the suit institutions either projecting himself as the founder, secretary or correspondent or in any other capacity. (d) granting such further or other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.