BHUPAT PATEL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against order dated 11.12.2015 passed by the Court of VIII Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, in Execution Case No.322A/94, whereby the application under Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 14.5.2015 filed on behalf of the defendants/judgment debtors was dismissed.

(2.) The fact necessary for disposal of this civil revision may be summarized as hereunder: Plaintiff/decree holder, who is respondent in this civil revision, filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, for vacant possession of suit land and mandatory injunction against the defendant/petitioner. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge and the lower appellate Court; however, the High Court, by its judgment dated 13.4.2012 passed in Second Appeal No.857/1995, set the judgments passed by the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court aside and decreed the claim of the plaintiff with costs. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application for execution of aforesaid judgment and decree.

(3.) During the course of the execution proceedings, the petitioner/judgment debtor filed an application under Order XXI read with Section 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure submitting that the map filed along with plaint does not reflect the real location of the plot of land in dispute. The map has not been prepared by any authorized person and is not drawn to scale. For want of land marks and proper description, it would not be possible to identify the alleged encroachment made by the judgment debtor/petitioner. For want of proper identification of the land in dispute, the decree is not executable; therefore, it was prayed that the Competent Revenue Authorities be directed to conduct the demarcation proceedings and prepare a proper map of the disputed piece of land. In support of aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the trial Court to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Singh and another Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad and another AIR 2003 S.C. 643, wherein it has been held that exact description of decretal property may be ascertained by the Executing Court as a question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree, within the meaning of Section 47 of the C.P.C.