Judgment : R.B. Mehrotra 1. SMT. Jai Mala filed a civil suit In the Court of IV Additional Civil Judge, Ghaziabad impleading Ghaziabad Development Authority through Its Vice-President as defendant. 2. THE relief sought for in the aforesaid suit was that the mandatory injunction of permanent nature be issued directing the defendant to transfer plot No. 9/93A, Sector 3, Rajendra Nagar, Ghaziabad in the name of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 500 per sq. metre in easy instalments fixed by the court. The suit was contested by Ghaziabad Development Authority. 3. ON pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed. Out of the aforesaid issues, following issues are relevant for the purpose of determination of the present revision : (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the plot No. 9/93A, Sector 3, Rajendra Nagar allotted in her name, as stated in Para 3 of the plaint, if yes, its effect? (5) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 4. WHILE deciding issue No. 1, a specific controversy was raised by the defendant, Ghaziabad Development Authority that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the plot transferred as per agreement between the parties at the rate of Rs. 500 per sq. metre. Specific finding has been recorded in the suit that plaintiff is entitled to get the disputed plot allotted in her name by paying the premium @ of Rs. 500 per sq. metre. On issue No. 5, the finding recorded was that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed for. It is apparent that the relief claimed for by the plaintiff in the plaint was that the land be transferred in her name at the rate of Rs. 500 per sq. metre, besides other charge regarding transfer, etc. The operative portion of the judgment says that the suit is decreed for mandatory injunction against the defendant directing the defendant to transfer the land in issue in the name of the plaintiff on fixed price in accordance with the Rules and fee thereof. It was also Stated that in case the defendant fails to do so, the court will get it done. The defendant refused to obey the decree, consequent thereto, the plaintiff filed execution application for getting the decree executed through court. The defendant-Ghaziabad Development Authority took objection that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the plot transferred at the rate of Rs. The defendant refused to obey the decree, consequent thereto, the plaintiff filed execution application for getting the decree executed through court. The defendant-Ghaziabad Development Authority took objection that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the plot transferred at the rate of Rs. 500 per sq. metre and there was no specific direction to the same effect in the operative portion of the judgment and decree. 5. THE contention of the Ghaziabad Development Authority was that the operative portion only says that the plot be transferred in accordance with the Rules, meaning thereby that the plaintiff was found entitled for getting the land transferred at the prevalent rate for the area, le., at the rate of Rs. 800 per sq. metre. This objection was specifically rejected by the executing court by order dated 16.12.1994. THE said order has been filed as Annexure 3 to the counter- affidavit. Specifically the contention of the Ghaziabad Development Authority that the plaintiff is entitled to get the plot transferred at the rate of Rs. 800 per sq. metre, was rejected by the aforesaid order. THE said order became final between the parties. 6. DESPITE the said order, the defendant-appellant Ghaziabad Development Authority did not allot the land and chose to file another objection in the execution proceeding. The said objection has again been rejected by the executing court by an order dated 22.5.1995. This order has been challenged in the present revision by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The objection by the Ghaziabad Development Authority is the same which it took earlier and which objection was rejected by the executing court on 16.12.1994. I have heard Sri A. K. Gaur, learned counsel for Ghaziabad Development Authority at length in support of the revision and Sri Vijay Prakash in opposition thereof who has put in appearance on notice being issued by this Court 7. LEARNED counsel for the revisionist vehemently contended that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree and it had no jurisdiction to compel Ghaziabad Development Authority to transfer the disputed plot in favour of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 500 per sq. metre. The direction in the operative portion of the decree was only that the plot be transferred in accordance with the Rules, meaning thereby that the plot can be transferred at the prevalent rate in accordance with the Rules, le., at the rate of Rs. 800 per sq. 500 per sq. metre. The direction in the operative portion of the decree was only that the plot be transferred in accordance with the Rules, meaning thereby that the plot can be transferred at the prevalent rate in accordance with the Rules, le., at the rate of Rs. 800 per sq. metre. 8. SRI Gaur has cited several decisions on the issue that the plea of jurisdiction can be raised at any time. It is clear from the record of the case that a specific finding was recorded by the trial court that the plaintiff is entitled to get the plot allotted at the rate of Rs. 500 per sq. metre and the operative portion of the decree is to be read in the context of the findings recorded by the Court in the suit. In any case, the said objection having been rejected by the executing Court, there was absolutely no Justification for the Ghaziabad Development Authority to file the revision without disclosing necessary facts in the court that the earlier order passed by the executing court has not been challenged by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The impugned order, however, specifically states that the earlier objection filed by Ghaziabad Development Authority has been rejected on 16.12.1994 and the said order has become final. 9. THE revisionist in Para 13 of the affidavit filed in support of the application for interim order stated that against the order dated 16.12.94, a revision has already been filed in this Court. This fact was denied in the counter- affidavit. In the rejoinder affidavit, the revisionist admitted that the fact was incorrectly stated by mistake. THE affidavits prove beyond doubt that the order dated 16.12.1994 has become final and the same was never challenged by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. 10. IN this view of the matter, Ghaziabad Development Authority had no justification to file the present revision or to raise objection again on the same ground on which it was already rejected. It is clearly a misuse of the process of the Court and the order has been obtained by the revisionist by misleading and mis-representing the facts to this Court. The matter calls for a serious action against the officer who has filed the affidavit. Para 13 of the affidavit filed in support of the interim application referred to above, was filed by Sri Padam Singh, Secretary, Ghaziabad Development Authority. The matter calls for a serious action against the officer who has filed the affidavit. Para 13 of the affidavit filed in support of the interim application referred to above, was filed by Sri Padam Singh, Secretary, Ghaziabad Development Authority. This affidavit has been sworn on 25.7.1995. Para 13 of the affidavit has been sworn on the basis of the record. Apparently, the affidavit is false, as there was no record showing that the order dated 16.12.1994 was challenged. In the circumstances of the case, I am not ordering prosecution of the officer but I am certainly of the view that the State authorities must enter into litigations with utmost care and caution and officers indulging in useless litigations must be taken to task. The facts of this case are more than glaring. The record shows that the officers of Ghaziabad Development Authority were deliberately delaying the execution proceeding since the judgment of the court giving rise to execution proceedings, is under challenge in appeal in this Court, I am not commenting on the merits of the case. However, in the circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the revision has no merit and is liable to be rejected with costs. 11. SECTION 3 of the Procedure of the High Court Act, 1869 empowers this Court to award and apportion costs in any manner it may think fit. In the facts of this case, I award a cost of Rs. 25,000 to the opposite party and the revision is dismissed with special cost of Rs. 25,000. This cost should be recovered from Shri Padam Singh, Secretary, Ghaziabad Development Authority who sworn an incorrect affidavit and manoeuvred an interim order from this Court on the basis of false affidavit. This direction has been given in view of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787 . The Registrar of this Court will ensure that the copy of this judgment is forwarded to the Secretary, Nagar Vikas Vibhag, U. P. Government within 15 days from today for appropriate action, who will report back compliance of the order within three months of the receipt thereof.