ANIL KUMAR Vs. JAWAHAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri K.K. Arora, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) BY means of impugned order the executing Court has held that since the decree stood executed/satisfied in view of Dakhalnama executed by the Court Amin, the petitioner could not maintain the execution application inasmuch as the decree having been satisfied the execution application could not be executed a second time for any subsequent cause of action.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the fact was brought to the notice of the Court that the decree has been executed on 31.5.2005 obtaining the signature of the brother of the tenant, however, the Dakhalnama executed by the Court Amin that possession has been taken by the petitioner was not finally accepted by the Court and no satisfaction of the decree was recorded by the Court, therefore, the petitioner moved an application with affidavit when in the night of 31.5.2005 and 1.6.2005 the respondent tenant forcibly entered the premises in question. It is only when the decree is satisfied and recorded by the Court and there is subsequent violation by the judgment debtor then the decree holder would have to avail his remedy in accordance with law and the execution could not continue after recording satisfaction of the decree.