Short Note : A decree was passed in Civil Suit No.55/54 declaring that the plaintiff-decree-holder had a right to pass through the lane from the back door of his house and also that he had a right to use the open land situated on the southwest side of his house and restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's aforesaid rights. When this decree was put in execution. the judgment-debtor raised an objection that the decree was vague and was not executable. This matter eventually came up in second appeal and this Court finally came to the conclusion that the decree was executable. As the judgment-debtor continued to cause obstruction in execution of the decree on an application made by the decree-holder the executing Court passed an order directing attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor to the extent of Rs.500. Against the said order of the executing Court the judgment-debtor preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed. Shri P.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although it has been held that the decree was executable still the decree is vague and the judgment debtor was in real difficulty and he never obstructed or intended to obstruct execution of the said decree. He submitted that the decree-holder had only a right of way and he had no right to use the land itself. The passage through which the decree-holder had to pass having not been demarcated in the decree, it was not clear as to from what particular place the decree holder had been given a right of way. The judgment-debtor had submitted as application on 20-11-1974 for clarification which was rejected by the executing Court. The Nazir who went on the spot to execute the decree also felt the same difficulty on account of the vagueness in the decree. Shri Saxena submitted that the judgment-debtor was willing to comply with the terms of the decree and there was no wilful disobedience on his part thereof. Held: From the terms of the decree itself Shri Saxena is not right when he says that the decree-holder had no right to use the land and he had only a right of way. As, stated above the decree clearly declares the right of the plaintiff to use the land situated adjacent to his house on the south-west side. Held: From the terms of the decree itself Shri Saxena is not right when he says that the decree-holder had no right to use the land and he had only a right of way. As, stated above the decree clearly declares the right of the plaintiff to use the land situated adjacent to his house on the south-west side. The judgment-debtor had admittedly put fencing and caused obstruction to the use of the said land by the decree-holder. In view of the Courts below have rightly found that the judgment-debtor had wilfully obstructed the execution of the decree and there is no ground for interference with the order passed by the lower Courts. Appeal dismissed.