Court No.2 Writ Petition No. 75 of 2002 (M/S) Bhuwan Chandra Shah ………… Petitioner Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board/ U.P. Power Corporation and One another ……………. Respondents …………………. Second Appeal No. 45 of 2001 U.P. State Electricity Board/ U.P. Power Corporation and One another ……………. Appellants Vs. Bhuwan Chandra Shah ………… Respondent ………………….. Hon. P.C. Verma, A.C.J. The aforementioned writ petition and appeal are interconnected and involve common question of law and facts and, therefore, they are being taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 1.12.2001 passed by the revisional Court (District Judge, Nainital) in Civil Revision No. 12 of 2001. The civil revision was filed against the order of execution passed by the executing Court, executing the decree dated 2.5.1997. The learned District Judge held that the decree is not executable. In order to appreciate the finding of the learned District Judge, it is appropriate to consider the decree at this juncture. The decree which was being executed is reproduced as under: **oknh dk okn fookfnr Hkwfe ij dCtk ikus ds fy, vkSj 60@&:0 fdjk;s dh jkf'k ikus ds fy, izfroknh ds fo:) e; [kpkZ fMdzh fd;k tkrk gSA izfroknh dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og rhu ekg vUnj fookfnr Hkwfe [kkyh djds ml ij oknh dk dCtk djk ns] vU;Fkk oknh dks U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls dCtk ikus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA okn nk;j gksus dh frfFk ls dCtk ikus dh frfFk rd oknh 20@&:0 okf"kZd crkSj Msestst izfroknh ls ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA izfroknh dk dkmUVj Dyse e; [kpkZ [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA** From the perusal of the decree, it is clear that the decree was passed against the defendant for handing over possession of the disputed land to the plaintiff and for payment of rent @ Rs. 60/- from the defendant. The defendant was also ordered to vacate the disputed land and handover the possession to the plaintiff failing which the plaintiff was to take possession through the Court. The plaintiff was also allowed damages @ 20/- per year from the date of filing of the suit till the date of handing over possession to him. The counter claim of the defendant was also rejected. As such, the decree can be executed by disposing the respondent. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned District Judge holding that the decree is not executable can not be sustained in the eye of law. The order dated 1.12.2001 passed by the District Judge, Nainital is hereby set aside and the executing Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. However, six months time is granted to the respondents to shift their sub-station to any other place or the State Government may proceed for acquisition of the land in question for the purposes of Uttaranchal Power Corporation. The writ petition and the appeal are disposed of accordingly. (P.C. Verma, A.C.J.) Dt. 19.06.2003 A