HEMCHAND Vs. KARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGEMENT :- This is a misc. appeal by the judgement-debtor against the order of the learned District Judge, Dungarpur dt. 16-12-85, dismissing his objections to the execution of a decree for specific performance of contract.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length.

(3.) The only objection of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the decree for specific performance of the contract did not provide for delivery of possession of the property, the executing court was wrong in holding that in execution of such a decree the executing court can deliver possession to the decree-holder as the relief of possession is implied in a decree for specific performance of the contract. He has divided his arguments in two limbs. The first limb of the argument is that in the suit the plaintiff had specifically prayed for grant of possession but the trial court did not grant the relief of possession and, therefore, under S.11 C.P.C. such a relief must be deemed to have been refused. That being so the executing court could non have granted such a relief. The second limb of the argument is that if at all the plaintiff decree-holder wanted to get the relief of possession in the present suit or the executing proceedings, he should have got the plaint amended and asked for the relief of possession as required by S.22 of the Specific Relief Act.