SHRIKRISHNA GUPTA Vs. SITARAM MOHANSWAROOP NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI P. L. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. The respondent has been served. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent. The short submission which has been made in this petition is that even though a decree of specific performance has been passed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has been deprived of the full benefits of the decree. The argument which prevailed with the executing Court was that in the decree which was passed, relief of specific performance of agreement was ordered and there was nothing mentioned therein that the possession is also to be delivered to the successful plaintiff.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision given by this Court in the case reported as Bata Shoe Co. vs. Preetamdas, 1982 MPLJ 560 = 1983 JLJ 422. In the aforementioned case, it has been specifically held that even if in the decree there is no provision directing delivery of possession even then, the executing Court can order delivery of possession. Para 18 of the Order is relevant and it be noticed :

(3.) FOLLOWING the view expressed by this Court which view is based on earlier Division Bench decision of this Court, it is held that the person in whose favour decree of specific performance is passed is entitled to possession also. The decision given to the contrary by the Court below is set aside. The executing Court would now proceed according to law. As there is no opposition, there would be no order as to the costs. This petition is disposed of accordingly.