KALIPADA SANTRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revisional application is a typical example of the desperate effort of the judgment-debtor to ward off the execution of the decree till the bailiff knocks at the door.

(2.) THE case as made Out by the petitioner in the revisional application inter alia, is that the opposite party filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the petitioner being Title Suit No. 37 of 1973 in the Court of the learned Muhsif at Uluberia, Howrah, inter alia, on the allegation that there was an unregistered agreement for sale of the disputed land executed by the petitioner in favour of the opposite party on 18th June, 1973 for rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- was received by the petitioners, but he refused to accept the balance amount and to execute the necessary sale deed inspite of repeated tenders and demands. The suit has contested by the petitioner denying and disputing the plaintiff's allegations. Ultimately, however, the suit was decreed which decree was even affirmed up to this Hon'ble Court in second appeal. The opposite party put the said decree into execution, consequent to which. Title Execution Case No. 14 of 1976 was started,, and the petitioner filed objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the said execution case which gave rise to Misc. Case No. 84 of 1983, in which it was contended inter alia, by the petitioner judgment-debtor that since the description of the suit property as made in the plaint was value and as there was so prayer for delivery of possession in the plaint, the decree for specific performance of contract passed against him was in executable. The learned, munsif, however, by his Order 66 dated 26th March, 1388 dismissed the said Misc. Case 84 of 1983 holding inter alia, that there was no merit in the said objection and the judgment-debtor was not only bound to executable the sale deed in question, he was also bound to put the decree holder into possession of the disputed property in terms of the decree as well, in view of the specific previsions of Section 55 (1) (f)of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner has challenged the said order of the learned Munsif in the present revisional application.

(3.) IT is contended by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the description of the suit property as given in the plaint, was vague and not demarcated and as the decree-holder did not pray for recovery of possession, the decree for specific performance of contract passed against his client was in executable in view of the provisions of Section 22 (2) of the specific Relief Act, 1963.