AGARTALA BENCH STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. TARUN CHDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions involving identical questions of fact and of law are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) Whether the decrees dated 12. 04.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Udaipur. South Tripura in Title Suit No. 11 of 1999 and Title Suit No. 14 of 1999 are executable or not is the moot point in these two revision petitions. Having held them to be executable by the learned Civil Judge in the impugned orders dated 12. 01.2004 in misc. 9 (A) of 2003 in Ex (T) 04 of 2003 and misc. 9 (B) of 2003 in Ex. (T) 03 of 2003, the two revision petitions have been filed by the State of Tripura and others. The two decrees, out of which the impugned orders have been passed by the executive court are in identical terms and therefore, it is sufficient to refer merely to one of such decrees, as illustrative of the nature of the decrees, which is as follows :

(3.) The principal contention of Mr. S. Deb, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the decree so passed is not executable since it is merely a declaratory decree as there is no consequential direction. According to the learned senior counsel, the only alternative for the respondents-decree holders herein is to file a suit and get the decree executed. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel that the decree does not mention the amount to be paid by the petitioners and also does not spell out who are juniors to the decree holders and consequently, the decree is incapable of execution. Per contra, Mr. S. Talapatra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the decree is not merely a declaratory decree as it mandates the implementation by the petitioners. Even if there is any ambiguity in the decree so passed, contends the learned counsel for the respondents, reference could always be had to the pleadings and the Judgment passed thereon to comprehend what the decree contemplated. The learned executing court has taken the view that the decree holders are the employees of the Judgment Debtors (i. e. , the petitioner herein) and as such it was within the knowledge of the Judgment Debtors as to who are the juniors of the decree holders and that moreover the seniority of the decree holders and their juniors are maintained by the Judgment Debtors.