BAVVA SINGH Vs. SADHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY the facts of this case are as follows:

(2.) WHETHER the present application does not lie ?

(3.) IT was next contended by Mr. H. R. Aggarwal that the present application made by the decree -holder under Order 21, rule 32, was not legally maintainable. The only remedy available to the decree -holder was by way of a separate suit and not by way of execution as the breach complained of gave a fresh cause of action to the decree -holder. On the other hand, Mr. S. S. Mahajan, learned counsel for the decree -holder; contended that the decree passed in favour of the respondent was for mandatory injunction by which the appellant was directed to construct a drain through which the water of the latrine could be thrown. According to the learned counsel, if any breach was committed any time by the judgment -debtor then the only remedy of the decree -holder was by way of an application under Order 21, rule 32(5) and not by way of a separate suit.