Civil Revision No.5547 of 2003 Housing Board Haryana and ors Vs. Tarun Kumar Mehta Present: None for the petitioners. Mr.R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent. * * * Permod Kohli, J (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.7.2003 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 15.10.2003 (Annexure P-2) passed by the executing Court, Ambala. The respondent filed a suit before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Ambala City for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from issuing allotment letter in respect of house Nos.310 and 314 to any other person except the plaintiff/respondent and further a consequential relief of mandatory injunction, directing the defendant/petitioner to allot corner preferential house Nos.310 and 314 to the plaintiff. The suit came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 6.9.1999. The following terms of the decree were incorporated:- “Keeping in view the discussion made while deciding issue No.1 to 5, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and defendants are directed to consider the case of the plaintiff for allotment of corner/preferential house No.310 for which auction has already been stayed vide order dated 12.1.1994 passed by Sh.B.L.Gulati, the then District Judge, Ambala while deciding civil miscellaneous appeal No.33. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.” It appears that the present petitioners, who were the judgment- debtor in the suit did not comply with the decree. Consequently, an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC came to be filed before the executing Court. In execution proceedings, the respondent-decree-holder besides asking for possession also prayed for providing him a habitable house under the general rules and policy of the Housing Board. The decree- holder also made an application dated 7.6.2003 for appointment of local commissioner for spot inspection to ascertain the existing condition of the house. The trial Court vide impugned order accepted the request of the Civil Revision No.5547 of 2003 decree holder and appointed a local commissioner to inspect the house in question. On obtaining the report of the commissioner, the executing court passed the second impugned order dated 15.10.2003. Vide this order, executing Court directed the present petitioners to carry out the necessary repairs of the house in question within a period of one month and hand over the possession to the decree holder. It is relevant to note that before passing of this order, the present petitioners had already allotted the house to the respondent. From the order impugned, it appears that the executing court had taken a view that allotted house is not habitable and thus, it was the inherent right of the decree holder to ask for repair. Consequently, the trial court passed the impugned orders. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-decree holder and perused the terms of the decree. The decree contained a simplicitor direction to allot a preferential corner house to the decree holder. There was no direction in the decree for conducting any repair/renovation in the house in question. The executing court while issuing the direction for carrying out the repair in the house, has in fact, gone beyond the scope of the decree which is impermissible in law. For the reason stated above, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. The same is hereby set aside. (Permod Kohli) Judge 04.08.2010 sd 2