THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.No.4650 of 2010 Date: 23.12.2011 Between: Sri M. Ganesh … Petitioner/ Decree holder AND Smt. A. Vedavathi … Respondents/ Judgment debtor THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.No.4650 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a decree holder. The petitioner’s claim for execution of the decree passed by the Lok Adalat was rejected by the execution court on the ground that the relief sought for in the execution petition is the same relief that was granted by the Lok Adalat and also on the ground that Order XXI Rule 34 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC, for short) has no application to the relief sought for by the decree holder. 2. The judgment debtor was served with notice. There is no representation for the judgment debtor. The service of notice to the judgment debtor was held sufficient. Consequently, this revision is disposed of after hearing the decree holder only. 3. The facts, which lead to the filing of the present case, are that the decree holder and the judgment debtor entered into an agreement pursuant to which the decree holder sold certain property to the judgment debtor. A sale deed dated 10.10.2002 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. However, the plaintiff did not deliver possession of the property covered by the sale deed, as an amount of ` 1,00,000/- was still due from the judgment debtor to the decree holder. 4. As things stood thus, a settlement was mooted between the decree holder and the judgment debtor. Consequently, the decree holder filed a Pre-Litigation Case in P.L.C.No.25 of 2009 before the Lok Adalat Bench at Hyderabad. The case was settled before the Lok Adalat. An award was accordingly passed. Clause-5 of the award reads: “In view of the compromise reported by the parties, the matter is closed as settled directing the parties to execute deed for cancellation of sale deed No.1145 of 2002, dated 10.10.2002 of SRO, Charminar, within 15 days and get it registered.” 5. Under Section 18 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, a decree passed by the Lok Adalat shall be executed before the District Judge in case of Pre-Litigation Case. Consequently, the decree holder moved the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court for a decree to give a direction to the judgment debtor to execute the cancellation deed of the sale deed dated 10.10.2002. 6. The execution court dismissed the execution petition on the ground that the relief sought for in the execution petition and the relief granted by the Lok Adalat are one and the same. In clause-5 of the award of the Lok Adalat, it was ordained that the judgment debtor shall execute the deed of cancellation within 15 days and get the same registered. While so, it is the case of the decree holder that the judgment debtor has not executed the deed of cancellation. Consequently, the decree holder approached the execution court. 7. The decree holder now seeks for execution of the cancellation deed under Order XXI Rule 34 CPC. When a decree is for the inspection of a document and the judgment debtor either accepted or refused to obey the decree, the decree holder may prepare a draft of the document in accordance with the terms of the decree and seek for the execution of the same by the judgment debtor and in the event the judgment debtor refused to do so by the court on behalf of the judgment debtor. It is precisely what the decree holder has chosen to do. 8. The learned execution court did not properly appreciate the relief that the decree holder has sought for. In the execution petition, the decree holder seeks for the implementation of Clause-5 of the award. Consequently, the relief sought for in the execution petition and the relief already granted by way of the order are not one and the same and is liable to be set aside. 9. The ground on which the execution petition was dismissed by the execution court is that order XXI Rule 34 CPC is not the appropriate provision. Indeed, Order XXI Rule 34 CPC is the only provision under which the decree holder can seek for a direction to the judgment debtor to execute the cancellation deed. The execution court is not correct in considering that the provision was not correctly noted by the decree holder. Assuming that the decree holder mentioned the incorrect provision, it cannot be a ground to dismiss the execution petition. At any rate, where Order XXI Rule 34 CPC is the appropriate provision, the view of the learned execution court is incorrect. On both the grounds, the findings of the execution court are liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the order in E.P.No.104 of 2009 dated 11.08.2010 is set aside. The execution Court shall proceed with further steps in the execution petition like executing the cancellation deed and getting it registered on behalf of the judgment debtor, if the judgment debtor is not willing to do so. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. _________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 23.12.2011 Isn