RAJWNAT SINGH GULATI Vs. HARAODHANDUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition seeks to challenge an order dated 24.7.1996 passed by the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon (now Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) in Title Execution Case No. 7/95. By the aforementioned order the learned court below has allowed the petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the judgment debtor holding that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 34/88 to be not executable.

(2.) The present petitioners who are the decree holders in Title Suit No. 34/88 had instituted the aforementioned title suit seeking eviction of Dilip Kumar Dutta and Harendra Kumar Dutta, the defendants in the suit. The suit was decreed by the learned court below by judgment and decree dated 24.3.1992 and the appeal namely. Title Appeal No. 20/93 filed by one Haradhan Dutta against the aforementioned judgment and decree, was dismissed on 23.2.1994. The revision proceeding instituted before this Court and registered as Civil Revision No. 266 of 1994 by the aforesaid Haradhan Dutta was also dismissed by this court by judgment and order dated 2.8.1995. Thereafter, the decree holder/plaintiff instituted Title Execution Case No. 7/95 for execution of the decree dated 24.3.1992 passed in Title Suit No. 34/88. An application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure having been filed by the judgment-debtor and the learned court below by the order impugned in the present proceeding having come to the finding that the decree is inexecutable, the instant proceeding has once again been brought before this court by the decreeholder/plaintiff.

(3.) A perusal of the order dated 24.7.1996 under challenge in the present revision proceeding would go to show that two grounds primarily were taken into consideration by the learned court below in coming to the findings impugned. The vagueness in the description of the suit property has been recorded as the first ground on which the decree has been held to be inexecutable. The learned Court below having found certain discrepancies in the description of the suit property as mentioned in the plaint and decree on the one hand and in the execution petition and the subsequent petition dated 4.2.1996 on the other has held that the suit property is not capable of exact identification. To elaborate a little further, in the decree, the suit property has been marked as 'X' which is described in schedule-'B' which is a part of schedule-'A property. Schedule-'A' has been described in the plaint and the decree drawn in terms thereof with certain specified boundaries. The boundaries of schedule - 'A' property as mentioned in the execution application as also in the petition No. 424/96 filed in the course of the execution proceeding indicates some variations with the boundaries as mentioned in the decree. Furthermore, schedule-'B' property having been referred to by means of a box stated to be located in north eastern corner of schedule-'A' property and identified by the letter 'X' was also found to be vague and not disclosing exact identity of the suit property from which the eviction of the judgment-debtor was required to be made.