NABA KISHORE SAHOO Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNITED Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the decree holder) prayed for execution of decree passed in favour in T.R.S. No. 19 of 1985 by learned Additional subordinate Judge, Dhenkanal. Prayer was to attach vehicle bearing registration No. O.R.D. 5589 belonging to Jugal Kishore Sahoo (hereinafter referred to as the 'borrower') and to attach land building as described in schedule 'A' of the application belonging to Surindera Kumar (opp. party No. 3), and put attached properties to sale. In the execution proceeding petitioner was arrayed as opposite party No. 2.

(2.) BACKGROUND in which the execution case name to be filed is as follows:

(3.) POWER of the executing court is too well known. It cannot go beyond the decree. It must take as it stands and execute according to its terms. It cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. It has no power to decide the rights of parties in controversy in the suit, or added to or alter the decree, or correct an error or grant a right not granted by the decree or adjudicate that it was obtained by fraud; or that the court which passed the decree lacked pecuniary, personal or territorial jurisdiction or not properly drawn up. But the court may refuse to execute a decree which is void or a nullity e.g. where the court passing decree lacked inherent jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter of action. When the term of the decree are ambiguous, the executing court can construe and interpret the decree and ascertain its precise terms, and for this purpose can peruse the judgment and pleadings. But in the garb of interpretation the Execution Court has no power to go beyond terms of the decree and bring into existence a new decree.