JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J, 1. Judgment-debtor is the Petitioner. He was Defendant in the suit for eviction from disputed 'Ka' schedule land of the plaint. In the suit, a survey knowing Commissioner was deputed who reported the disputed land to be of lesser area than what was claimed in the plaint. Trial Court referred to the Commissioner's report in the judgment but directed in the ordering portion that suit is decreed in respect of the 'Ka' schedule land of the plaint. Defendant preferred an appeal in which suit was dismissed. Plaintiff preferred Second Appeal where decree of the trial Court was restored. This is the decree which is sought to be executed. 2. In the execution proceeding, Defendant judgment-debtor chimed that he is not liable to be evicted from the entire 'Ka' Schedule property as described in the plaint but the decree is executable in the maximum only in respect of the area as found by the survey knowing Commissioner. Executing Court having held that it cannot go behind the decree, this Civil Revision has been filed for setting aside the said order. 3. While Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that executing Court ought to have looked into the Commissioner's report and the judgments to find out whether the decree relates to the area of land as described in the plaint or to the area as stated by the Commissioner, Mr. S.S. Mohanti, learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the decree is so clear that there was no scope for construing the decree. 4. It is not disputed before me that Commissioner in his report stated the encroachment to be of a smaller area than what is claimed in the plaint. It is also not disputed that trial Court did not reject or disbelieve the Commissioner's report although it discussed the same. In such circumstances the dispute centers round the area in respect of which execution is to be effected by the executing Court. 5. Under Order 20, Rule 6, CPC decree is to agree with the judgment since decree is a formal expression of adjudication which is made in the judgment. It goes without saying that the various issues are answered in the judgment and the order is passed which is the formal expression of adjudication. 5. Under Order 20, Rule 6, CPC decree is to agree with the judgment since decree is a formal expression of adjudication which is made in the judgment. It goes without saying that the various issues are answered in the judgment and the order is passed which is the formal expression of adjudication. Determination of the question whether the decree is in accordance with the judgment does not amount to going behind the decree. It is only interpretation or construction of the decree. Where there is controversy between the parties as to what is the decree, Court has to go into the documents produced by the parties to find out the nature of the decree. If after giving opportunity to parties, it comes to the conclusion that the decree is in confirmity with the judgment, it shall proceed to execute the decree. If it finds that there is ambiguity, it shall resolve the same. This is the effect of all the decisions of Privy Council, Supreme Court and of this Court. 6. In AIR 1944 46 (Privy Council) it has been observed that in a case where the terms of the decree are ambiguous, executing Court is entitled to look into the pleadings and the judgment. In 23 (1957) CLT 133 Sarat Kumar Deo v. Dabendra Narayan Dutta and Ors. it has been observed that executing Court has the competency to construe the decree which he has to execute and while so construing it has absolute jurisdiction to refer to the judgment. In Topanmal Chhotamal Vs. Kundomal Gangaram and Others, referring to AIR 1944 46 (Privy Council) it has been observed: ...For the purpose of interpreting a decree, when its terms are ambiguous, the Court should certainly be entitled to look into the pleadings and the judgment.... In ILR 1966 Cut. 796 Chaudhury Dambaru Pradhan and Ors. v. Chaudhuri Kausalya Pradhanuni question was whether the decree was declaratory one not to be capable of execution. Relying upon AIR 1944 46 (Privy Council), this Court looked to the plaint, written statement to construe the decree where nothing was expressed in respect of possession. In 1971(I) CWR 1017 Jagannath Prasad Khandalwalla v. Fulamani Dei and Anr. relying upon Topanmal Chhotamal Vs. Relying upon AIR 1944 46 (Privy Council), this Court looked to the plaint, written statement to construe the decree where nothing was expressed in respect of possession. In 1971(I) CWR 1017 Jagannath Prasad Khandalwalla v. Fulamani Dei and Anr. relying upon Topanmal Chhotamal Vs. Kundomal Gangaram and Others ambiguity in the decree resolved by the executing Court in respect of the question whether a charge was created by referring to the judgment of the Court, was upheld. In Bhavan Vaja and Others Vs. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang and Another, it was observed: ...It is true that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree under execution. But that does not mean that it has no duty to find out the true effect of that decree. For construing a decree it can and in appropriate cases, it ought to take into consideration the pleadings as well as the proceedings leading up to the decree. In order to find out the meaning of the words employed in a decree the Court, often has to ascertain the circumstances under which those words came to be used. That is the plain duty of the execution Court and if that Court fails to discharge that duty it has plainly failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Evidently the execution Court in this case thought that its jurisdiction began and ended with merely looking at the decree as it was finally drafted. Despite the fact that the pleadings as well as the earlier judgments rendered by the Board as well as by the appellate Court had been placed before it, the execution Court does not appear to have considered those documents. In 1974 (2) CWR 925 Braja Sundar Dash v. Giridhari Dash and Anr. relying upon the decisions reported in AIR 1944 46 (Privy Council), Topanmal Chhotamal Vs. Kundomal Gangaram and Others. this Court observed: ...It has been well established that where a decree appears to be ambigueus, it is the duty of the executing Court to construe it and, for the purpose of interpretation, it would be certainly entitled to look into the pleadings and the judgment.... In 1975 (2) CWR 724 Sarat Chandra Patro v. Narasingha Patro and Ors. this Court referred to AIR 1960 S.C. 385 (supra) and Bhavan Vaja and Others Vs. In 1975 (2) CWR 724 Sarat Chandra Patro v. Narasingha Patro and Ors. this Court referred to AIR 1960 S.C. 385 (supra) and Bhavan Vaja and Others Vs. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang and Another, and considered the appellate judgment to find out whether any time limit was fixed by the Court to pay the balance compensation amount as stated in the decree and the effect of the same. It was observed: ...The executing Court is not merely to execute the decree as an automation and/or in a mechanical manner and in certain cases it is duty of the executing Court to properly construe the decree in order to find out the true import and effect of the same, so that it can proceed to execute the decree in its true and correct perspective giving full effect to the same. In 1976 S.C. 1476 Mulla Alibhai and Ors. v. Madrasai Haximia and Coronation High School and Ors. etc Supreme Court upheld the action of the executing Court in considering the pleadings and judgment to find out whether the decree was in respect of accounts of the building only or in respect of other properties. Relying upon the two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Bhavan Vaja and Others Vs. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang and Another, and Mulla Alibhai and Others Vs. Madrasai Hakimia and Coronation High School and Others, etc., and the decision of this Court reported in 34 (1968) CLT 228 Chandra Sekhar Rath v. Lingaraj Mohapatra and Ors. this Court in the decision reported in 62 (1986) CLT 112 Biswanath Bisu Naik v. Srimati Uttara Bewa and Ors. it was observed: ...Ordinarily the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. But it is within the competence of the executing Court to interpret the decree...and for doing so the Court can refer to the relief sought in the plaint and discussions in the judgment to ascertain the true import of the decree.... 7. From the aforesaid resume of some of the important decisions of Privy Council, Supreme Court and of this Court, it is clear that normally executing Court is not to go behind the decree when the language of the decree is clear and unambiguous. 7. From the aforesaid resume of some of the important decisions of Privy Council, Supreme Court and of this Court, it is clear that normally executing Court is not to go behind the decree when the language of the decree is clear and unambiguous. Where the decree sought to be executed is ambiguous executing Court is to construe the same by referring to the pleadings as well as the proceedings of the decree to determine the true import of the decree so that the same is to be effectively executed. Where there is a controversy between the decree-holder and the judgment debtor, one claiming that the decree is clear and the other claiming that the decree is ambiguous, executing. Court is to resolve the controversy by looking into the documents filed by both parties keeping in mind their relevancy and admissibility as provided in the Evidence Act. Where executing Court does not consider the claim of one party by mechanically expressing that it cannot go behind the decree, without considering whether really there is any ambiguity as claimed by one party, it exercises jurisdiction with material irregularity and such order cannot be sustained. 8. In the present case, executing Court has not resolved the controversy and has simply ignored the same by expressing that it cannot go behind the decree. Accordingly, the impugned order has become vulnerable and is liable to be set aside. Executing Court is to consider the pleadings and judgments and if necessary, the memoranda of appeals to find out the area from which judgment-debtor is to be evicted. 9. In the result, Civil Revision is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed