Alamengada Muddappa and ors. Vs. Alamengada Kuttappa and ors.

.....deed in favour of the decree holder, despite the sale deed, and after the delivery of possession the executing court has passed the impugned order for redelivery of possession to the judgment debtor that to by constructing the structure, that to on an application under section 151 of c.p.c. - even in case of execution of decree which is set aside by the appellate court at later stage; the judgment debtor requires to file an application under section 144 for restoration of possession. but in this case, the decree is not reserved nor decree is executed in violation of interim order, still the decree holder is directed to deliver possession to judgment debtor. this only shows that the executing court has either failed to consider the relevant procedure or has acted in derogance to the provisions of law and procedure. it must also be mentioned, that obtaining of decree is much easier than the getting of the fruits of the decree. on account of irrelevant procedure the execution proceedings are made more complicated. - impugned order is set aside - civil procedure code, 1908 - section 151 and section 144 - discussed. (para 11) writ petition is allowed. order(a) appeal is devoid of merit and hence, stands dismissed, subject to the observations made supra.(b) case of both parties is kept open for consideration by the trial court, on all the issues, except issue no. 7.(c) the trial court is directed to take the suit on its board on 21.6.2010 and proceed further in the matter. learned counsel appearing for the parties have undertaken to keep their clients present before the trial court on 21.6.2010 to receive the orders.(d) trial court is hereby directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously and at rate within one year period from the date of first appearance of the parties.in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.