Most. Fudni Devi and ors. Vs. Chotelall Sah and ors.

Most. Fudni Devi and ors. vs Chotelall Sah and ors.

Disposition Application dismissed Court Patna Decided Sep 15, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/119853

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/119853
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.
Decided On: Sep 15, 2006
Subject: ;Civil
Disposition: Application dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - It is well settled that the executing Court has to execrate the judgment and decree as it is.

Key legal issue: ;Civil
Outcome / disposition: Application dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Most. Fudni Devi and ors.

Respondent

Chotelall Sah and ors.

Court's Analysis

Prior History: Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Mandal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner.
2. He submits that plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and if found out of possession or if dispossessed during pendency of suit for restoration of possession the suit was decreed. The trial Court confirmed his possession. The suit was decreed. No sooner the suit was decreed the defendants who did not appear in the proceedings dispossessed the peti

Excerpt

- - it is well settled that the executing court has to execrate the judgment and decree as it is......the proceedings dispossessed the petitioner. the petitioner then put the decree in execution. the court refused to go behind the decree and said that the decree was unexecutable. it is this order that is under challenge. strict reliance has been placed in air 1988 orissa page 9 which is virtually identical on facts. the said court has held that executing court was only to interpret the judgment and decree in the light of relief that was sought for which included a relief of restoration of possession the same could be granted executed by the executing court.3. i am afraid, i am unable to agree with the said proposition. it is well settled that the executing court has to execrate the judgment and decree as it is. the relief that the plaintiff had sought was for restoration of possession if he was not found in possession and/or restoration of possession if he was dispossessed. in course of proceeding the trial court found his possession and confirmed his possession. the other reliefs of restoration could not be granted in the aforesaid circumstances. it was therefore deemed to have been rejected. admittedly, the petitioner was dispossessed soon after the judgment and decree. those events were subsequent events which were not carried by the judgment and decree. it is not the plaint or the relief sought for which controls the judgment and decree, it is the judgment and decree which gives the relief. here as no relief of restoration was given the decree was rightly held to be unexecutable. in my view there is specific remedy available to the petitioner in terms of section 6 of the specific relief act as the petitioner is said to have been dispossessed immediately after the judgment and decree and judgment and decree confirmed his possession, right, title and interest. in that view of the matter, the executing court has committed no jurisdictional error.4. this revision application is dismissed accordingly.

Full Judgment

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri Mandal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner.

2. He submits that plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and if found out of possession or if dispossessed during pendency of suit for restoration of possession the suit was decreed. The trial Court confirmed his possession. The suit was decreed. No sooner the suit was decreed the defendants who did not appear in the proceedings dispossessed the petitioner. The petitioner then put the decree in execution. The Court refused to go behind the decree and said that the decree was unexecutable. It is this order that is under challenge. Strict reliance has been placed in AIR 1988 Orissa Page 9 which is virtually identical on facts. The said Court has held that executing Court was only to interpret the judgment and decree in the light of relief that was sought for which included a relief of restoration of possession the same could be granted executed by the executing Court.

3. I am afraid, I am unable to agree with the said proposition. It is well settled that the executing Court has to execrate the judgment and decree as it is. The relief that the plaintiff had sought was for restoration of possession if he was not found in possession and/or restoration of possession if he was dispossessed. In course of proceeding the trial Court found his possession and confirmed his possession. The other reliefs of restoration could not be granted in the aforesaid circumstances. It was therefore deemed to have been rejected. Admittedly, the petitioner was dispossessed soon after the judgment and decree. Those events were subsequent events which were not carried by the judgment and decree. It is not the plaint or the relief sought for which controls the judgment and decree, it is the judgment and decree which gives the relief. Here as no relief of restoration was given the decree was rightly held to be unexecutable. In my view there is specific remedy available to the petitioner in terms of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act as the petitioner is said to have been dispossessed immediately after the judgment and decree and judgment and decree confirmed his possession, right, title and interest. In that view of the matter, the executing Court has committed no jurisdictional error.

4. This revision application is dismissed accordingly.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2006 Same Parties Most. Fudni Devi and ors. vs Chotelall Sah and ors. Same Subject ;Civil Same Judge Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

;Civil