GOPAL BARIK Vs. BHIMA BARIK AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT -debtor is petitioner in this Civil Revision.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit for title, confirmation of possession and in case it is found that plaintiff has been dispossessed during pendency of the suit for recovery of possession. Plaintiff also prayed for permanently restraining defendant from interfering with his possession. Suit was decreed by finding that plaintiff has title and possession over the property and consequently defendant was permanently restrained. There after, plaintiff as decree -holder filed execution for recovery of possession from defendant judgment -debtor. Objection was filed by judgment -debtor that in view of the nature of the decree, there is no scope for recovery of possession. Executing Court having rejected the objection by the impugned order the same is assailed in the present Civil Revision.

(3.) TO avoid the technical difficulties and to protect a decree -holder after obtaining the decree, from enjoying the fruits of the decree, Code of Civil Procedure has been amended. Where the execution would be in respect of some relief which was specifically refused or is inconsistent with the relief granted, executing Court cannot go behind the decree to execute the same. Where, however, the decree is not inconsistent with the relief sought to be executed and is in furtherance of the same, it would come within the domain of interpretation of the decree. Hence. I am not inclined to accept submission of Mr. Misra. To accept submission of Mr. Misra would be to defeat the object of the Parliament to protect decree -holder. A judgment -debtor who is vanquished in the legal battle cannot be allowed to enjoy the property which Court on trial held that he is not entitled to.