J.S. VERMA, CJ.—This is decree-holders revision against the executing courts order dated 29.5.82. The terms of the decree are not in controversy and are quoted in the impugned order itself. 2. In substance, the decree forbids the judgment-debtor from taking out water from the Bavri described in para one of the plaint; and it requires the defendant-judgment-debtor to remove the specified construction made by it as well as the electric motor from the Bavri; and to pay Rs. 1300/- as cost of the water pumped out from March 1973 to April 1974. In addition, the decree directs payment by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder at the rate of Rs.100/- per month as the cost of water till, possession of the Bavri is restored to the plaintiff decree-holder. The cost of the suit are also to be paid to the decree-holder. 3. It is not disputed before me that atleast the construction required to be removed by the judgment-debtor has so far not been removed. This being so, the executing court is required to ensure full satisfaction of the decree, by ensuring compliance of every part thereof, before treating the same as fully satisfied. Apparently, this has not yet been done by the executing court. The case, must, therefore, go back the executing court for this purpose. 4. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The executing court is directed to ensure full satisfaction of the clear terms of the decree, before recording its satisfaction. 5. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.