CR No. 3347 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3347 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 8.1.2010 Kulwinder Kaur & others .......... Petitioners Versus Harnam Dass alias Nama & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL The petitioners by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have challenged the order dated 30.4.2008, passed by the learned executing Court, which reads as under :- “Perusal of the judgment and decree shows that a suit for mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiff /D.H. Directing the defendant to earmark path and to remove the encroachment from the Rasta measuring 2 x 21 karams from eastern side of Khasra No. 74 connecting killa No. 13//7/2 with the path to Dharamshala. The relief Para of judgment shows that decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to earmark the part of 2 karam x 21 karams from western side of khasra No. 74 adjoining to the land of Khema etc. connecting khasra No.13//7/2 has been passed. The learned counsel for the J.D. has raised the contention that no Rasta has been CR No. 3347 of 2008 2 given from the eastern side of Khasra No. 74 in the decree and in the execution application, the D.H. has sought the Rasta from Eastern side of khasra No. 74 which is not given in the decree. As such, the execution application is not maintainable, but I do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel. From the perusal of the decree it is clear that a Rasta has been given to the D.H. adjoining to the land of Khema. In the site plan the Rasta claimed is also adjoining to the land of Khema. So the Executing court is bound to execute the decree as it is. If a Rasta has been given to the D.H. from khasra no. 74 from the western side adjoining to the land of Khema, then the J.D. is bound to earmark that Rasta and to remove the encroachment. The decree Holder has contested this case up to Hon'ble High Court, so he can not be deprived of the fruits of decree. Merely this execution application has been filed for claiming the Rasta from eastern side of khasra No. 74, whereas it has been provided from the western side of khasra No. 74. Moreover, it is clear from the relief Para that a Rasta adjoining to the land of Khema has been given to the D.H. So the J.D. is directed to earmark the Rasta as has been provided in the decree and to comply with the decree, in letter and spirit. J.D. is given time upto 30.5.08 for complying the decree, failing which he shall be sent to Civil Imprisonment under the provision of order 21 rule 32. Now to come up on 30.5.08 for compliance of decree by the J.D.” The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order only on the ground that, as per the decree the path was to be CR No. 3347 of 2008 3 provided on the western side, and not on the eastern side, as mentioned by the learned executing Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the executing Court could not go behind the decree, and grant different relief than the one granted under the decree. Notice of the revision was issued. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states, that there is a passage on the western side and not on the eastern side, as mentioned in the decree. It is further stand of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the respondents would seek the path strictly in accordance with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, without seeking any change in the decree. The stand of the learned counsel for the respondent further is that word 'western side' is on account of typographical error which stands corrected. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents the word “western” is a typographical error, which can be corrected invoking Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The path is to be provided by learned executing Court strictly as per the decree. Revision disposed of. 8.1.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE