Civil Revision No.2680 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2680 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.03.2009 Mangal Dass .............Petitioner Vs. M/s Rama Ice & Cold Storage, Delhi through partners ............Respondent Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The civil revision petition is against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat dismissing an appeal filed by the judgment-debtor. Earlier, the Executing Court had rejected the petition filed by the judgment-debtor when the decree-holder sought to put the decree for specific performance in execution by preparing a draft sale deed purported to be with reference to a property found in the agreement dated 15.09.1979. The agreement and the decree make specific reference to measurements of various portions of the property in Khasra No.9 and 10 Min but the linear measurements of entire property, which is purported to be sold is not mentioned. The property is also described by boundaries and it is stated specifically that on the east was the plot of Mangal Dass, who was the judgment- Civil Revision No.2680 of 2008 (O&M) -2- debtor. The Executing Court found the petition to be invalid and judgment-debtor preferred an appeal against the decision to the Additional District Judge, who also confirmed the said decision. 2. It is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that the site plan had not been produced by the decree-holder but it was specifically shown and exhibited as DW-34 where the vacant land which was retained by Mangal Dass was shown in the plan and it was not a subject of the agreement. It is also his contention that the vacant land, east of the built up portions, had not been decreed and it was not the subject of agreement. 3. I find that the order passed by the Executing Court rejecting the petition of the judgment-debtor was wrongly challenged before a forum in appeal, which was not competent to entertain the appeal since an order passed in execution, which was not in the nature of decree under Order 21 Rule 101. I still find that this Court, in its exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, is competent to render invalid the jurisdiction wrongly usurped by the Additional District Judge and also to render a proper adjudication on the rights of the parties to make a complete and effective adjudication of identifying the property, which was decreed and which could have been put in execution. 4. The decree, which is sought to be executed merely states that the Court will order the defendant to specifically perform the agreement dated 15.09.1979. The decreesheet itself does not contain the linear measurement relating to the property. Ideally, the decree should be complete in all its respects and wherever the suit is with Civil Revision No.2680 of 2008 (O&M) -3- reference to immovable property, the description of property shall be incorporated in the decree itself. Unfortunately, the decree does not bring about the incorporation of either the measurements or boundaries and that has afforded a ground for a decree-holder to urge for inclusion of property, which is not even the subject of agreement. In an attempt to understand the real nature of decree and the extent to which execution could be levied, Courts have the power to examine the judgment itself and on going through the judgment, it is seen that the trial Court found that there was no confusion with reference to the description of property. The Civil Procedure Code itself lays down under Order 7 Rule 3 that wherever subject matter of suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of property sufficiently to identify it and in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. The description as found in the plaint shall likewise be incorporated in the decree also so that the Executing Court has clear idea of what the decree-holder seeks for execution and that no portion of the property that is not decreed is ever included to cause hardship to a defendant or to prevent undue advantage to the decree-holder himself. 5. On a proper reading of the plaint and the judgment, it bears out clearly that only portions of the two Khasra Nos.9 and 10 are included and the boundaries mentioned on all the four sides clearly reveal that on the east was the portion of a vacant land retained by the land owner. The draft shall deed, which has been produced does not refer to the linear measurements of the property and over the lack of Civil Revision No.2680 of 2008 (O&M) -4- specific details about the total extent of property purported to be conveyed is bound to cast a fresh cause for controversy between the parties. It is a notorious fact that the litigations do not end with mere grant of decree but the actual litigation starts only from the execution process. If this pernicious trend has to abate, it is imperative that the Executing Court has sufficient material to ensure that no further controversy subsists after a sale deed is executed, the property to be delivered to the decree-holder shall be clearly identified. 6. In the above circumstances, I set aside the order passed by the Executing Court that stood affirmed by the Appellate Court although the Appellate Court did not have a jurisdiction to entertain appeal and remit the matter to the execution court for consideration afresh, when the decree-holder furnishes the area of the property sought to be conveyed that shall exclude the vacant land on the east as found in DW-34 having due regard to the recitals in the agreement. 7. The civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 23, 2009 Pankaj*