Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 216 (JK)

Sudharshana v. Rakesh Kumar

2004-07-22

S.K.GUPTA

body2004
1. Through the currency of this revision, the petitioner/decree-holder seeks the reversal of the order dated 9th February, 2004 propounded by Sub-Judge, Katra, whereby he has declined the prayer for the delivery of possession of land aggregating two kanals two marlas contained in Khasra No.119 located in Katra in execution of decree dated 25-01-1986 passed by Sub-Judge, Reasi, in suit No.23/Civil of 1976 and further for setting aside the order dated 21st May, 2001 of the Sub-Judge, Reasi. Facts relevant for the disposal of this revision, in resume, may be noticed. 2. A civil suit was commenced by the petitioner for possession of land explicitly delineated in the title of the revision, in the Court of Sub-Judge, Reasi. Sub-Judge, Reasi, decreed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner in her favour, vide his judgment and decree dated 25-01-1986. The decree was appealed against by the judgment-debtors before the High Court in Civil Second Appeal No.21/1988, but remained unsuccessful. Aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid Civil Second Appeal, the respondents/judgment debtors filed SLP No.4293 of 2000, which stood dismissed on 11-12-2000 and the decree of the Trial Court attained finality. The decree-holder preferred the execution proceedings seeking initiation of proceedings for execution of the decree in the Court of Sub-Judge, Reasi. After inviting objections of the judgment-debtors and hearing the parties, Sub-Judge, Reasi, rejected the plea taken in the objections and directed the delivery of the possession of land in dispute to the petitioner/decree-holder. A warrant for possession was issued and endorsed to the Collector, SDM, Reasi, directing the handing over of the possession of the land in dispute to the decree-holder or to his duly authorized representative; with a further direction to the Collector to seek police assistance, in case he finds any difficulty from the judgment-debtors in the execution of the warrant, vide his order dated 30th March, 2001. 3. It is stated that the warrant, however, could not be executed, as the judgment-debtors intimated that they had obtained a stay order from the High Court in Civil Revision No.48/2001 against the order passed by the Sub-Judge, Reasi and did not permit the execution of the decree. 3. It is stated that the warrant, however, could not be executed, as the judgment-debtors intimated that they had obtained a stay order from the High Court in Civil Revision No.48/2001 against the order passed by the Sub-Judge, Reasi and did not permit the execution of the decree. An application, however, came to be preferred by the judgment-debtors before the Sub-Judge, Reasi, after obtaining a stay from the High Court in the aforesaid Revision, seeking the recalling of the order dated 30th March, 2001 passed by the Executing Court in File No.3/Civil and restraining the decree-holder from interfering into the property in dispute, in occupation of the judgment-debtors. This application was filed on 21-04-2001 by the judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtors specifically recited in the said application that the possession of the land has not been taken over from them and the judgment-debtors still continue to be in possession of land in dispute. It was also indicated in the application that the High Court has stayed the execution and prayed that the warrant of possession be recalled and the judgment-debtors be allowed to remain in possession. It was further reiterated in Para No.8 of the application that the decree-holder is unnecessarily trying to interfere with the land in possession of the judgment-debtors, as revealed from the certified copy of the application enclosed as Annexure-C. A suit also came to be filed by the judgment-debtors in the Court assailing the correctness of the decree made in judgment by Sub-Judge, Reasi in File No.23/Civil of 1976, in which ex-parte stay order was passed. The ex-parte interim injunction, however, stood vacated on 16-02-2002 by the Additional District Judge, Reasi, after having formed an opinion that no prima facie case exists in favour of the judgment-debtors/plaintiffs in the said suit and the execution of the decree would not cause any injury to the plaintiffs. 4. A Revision filed to impugn the correctness of this order passed by the Additional District Judge, Reasi, also stood dismissed by the High Court as withdrawn on 16-07-2001, after the petitioner put appearance and contested the same, and the interim direction stood vacated in resultant thereof. 4. A Revision filed to impugn the correctness of this order passed by the Additional District Judge, Reasi, also stood dismissed by the High Court as withdrawn on 16-07-2001, after the petitioner put appearance and contested the same, and the interim direction stood vacated in resultant thereof. It was during the period when the petitioner/decree-holder was engrossed in contesting the suit for declaration filed by the judgment-debtors in the Court of Additional District Judge, Reasi, and also a Revision pending before the High Court, against the stay vacated by the Additional District Judge, Reasi, Sub-Judge, Reasi, acted on the report of the Collector that the possession of the land stands delivered and further recorded that the report on the warrant issued by the Court is also signed by the judgment-debtors, and the decree has been satisfied and the file be consigned to records, vide his order dated 21-05-2001. 5. The petitioner/decree-holder when learnt about the order dated 21-05-2001 passed by the Executing Court, he filed an application before the Executing Court pointing out the mistake committed and prayed for its correction and execution of the decree dated 25-01-1986 passed in Civil Suit No.23 of 1976 and delivery of possession of the landed estate to the petitioner. This execution petition, however, subsequently stood transferred to Sub-Judge, Katra, and the prayer of the petitioner to execute the decree and deliver the possession of the suit property was declined vide his order dated 09-02-2004, which became the subject matter of Revision in this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in extenso and also perused meticulously the record of the file and gone through the relevant provisions of law touching the matter in controversy. The sole controversy in this Revision revolves round the question as to when first execution decree has been directed to be consigned to the record after the decree has been satisfied in the opinion of the Court, whether second execution application is maintainable? Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Revisionist, vehemently urged that the Executing Court, in declining to recall the order dated 21-05-2001, has acted illegally. He further submitted that the Court has inherent jurisdiction to correct its errors in the judicial record, so as to ensure that it does not occasion miscarriage of justice, in relying on the maxim `ACTUS CURIE NEMINEM GRAVABIT. He further submitted that the Court has inherent jurisdiction to correct its errors in the judicial record, so as to ensure that it does not occasion miscarriage of justice, in relying on the maxim `ACTUS CURIE NEMINEM GRAVABIT. His further submission is that the provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been misinterpreted by the Executing Court and reached a conclusion, which is both factually and legally erroneous in passing the impugned order. Mr. Singh also submitted that on facts, the report of the Tehsildar, Reasi, has not been correctly understood and misconstrued by the Executing Court, particularly when the judgment-debtors in their application filed before the Executing Court seeking recalling of the order dated 30th March, 2001, have stated in unequivocal terms that they are still in possession of the property and the same has not been taken over from them in view of the stay order passed by the High Court and brought to the notice of the Tehsildar proceeded on spot and was handed over the copy of the stay order, and the Executing Court erroneously passed the order that the decree stands satisfied and warrants executed, vide order dated 21-05-2001. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been illegally deprived of the fruit of the decree, which has resulted in failure of justice. That in view of the concluding judgments of the competent Courts, the petitioner/decree-holder is entitled to the delivery of the possession of the property in suit in execution of the decree. Another limb of argument advanced by Mr. J.P. Singh is that in the absence of service of notice under Order 21 Rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, no legal order under Order 21 Rule 2 is contemplated. That instead of seeking service of notice on decree-holder, a written application had been made by the judgment-debtors admitting that the decree has not been executed by the Collector and the Tehsildar, and the judgment-debtors continue to remain in possession of the land in dispute. According to Mr. J.P. Singh, the Executing Court should not have passed the order dated 21st May, 2001 regarding satisfaction of the decree and execution of the warrant. Order dated 21st May, 2001 was patently illegal and contrary to the facts on record. According to Mr. J.P. Singh, the Executing Court should not have passed the order dated 21st May, 2001 regarding satisfaction of the decree and execution of the warrant. Order dated 21st May, 2001 was patently illegal and contrary to the facts on record. The Executing Court could not dismiss the application of the petitioner/decree-holder on the basis of such an order and decline the execution of the decree and delivery of the possession to the decree-holder, vide his order impugned in Revision. Mr. K.K. Pangotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, strenuously submitted that when the plaintiff/decree-holder has obtained the possession of disputed property after passing of the decree and in execution proceedings, second application for execution of the same decree would not lie. His further submission is that if the decree-holder is dispossessed thereafter, she gets a fresh cause of action for filing a suit on the basis of her dispossession. Reliance has been placed on the report of the Tehsildar dated 09-04-2001 vide which the possession of the land in dispute was delivered to the petitioner/decree-holder in execution of a warrant issued by the Executing Court of Sub-Judge, Reasi. His further submission is that it was on the basis of this report submitted by the Collector that the possession has been delivered and warrant stands executed, the Sub-Judge, Reasi, recorded satisfaction of the decree by recording that the decree has been satisfied and the warrant stands executed, the file be consigned to record vide order dated 21-05-2001. According to Mr. Pangotra, the second application for execution of a decree, which has already been satisfied, is not maintainable. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for possession in the Court of Sub-Judge, Reasi. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. The judgment was confirmed in appeal. The High in Civil Second appeal No.21/1988 also upheld that judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner, which further assumed finality in SLP No.4293 of 2000 in the Apex Court. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. The judgment was confirmed in appeal. The High in Civil Second appeal No.21/1988 also upheld that judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner, which further assumed finality in SLP No.4293 of 2000 in the Apex Court. In the execution Petition filed by the decree-holder seeking execution of the decree, the execution warrant was issued by Sub-Judge, Reasi vide order dated 30th March, 2001 directing the Collector to deliver the possession of the land in dispute to the decree-holder and in case any difficulty is faced in the execution of the warrant, he could also seek the police assistance. It is further borne out from the record and undisputed by the parties that the Tehsildar went on spot for execution of the warrant and delivery of possession to the decree-holder. The record further shows that the Tehsildar vide its report dated 09-04-2001 submitted to SDM, Reasi, stated that in a portion of the land, some wooden sheds of the judgment-debtors were lying and the judgment-debtors had undertaken to remove the same within two days and in case they do not remove it within the said period, it will become the property of the decree-holder. This report was endorsed by the SDM to the Sub-Judge, Reasi, who, in turn, passed the order on 21-05-2001 that the decree has been satisfied and warrant executed, and the file be consigned to record. It is pertinent to point out that after the submission of the report by the SDM, Reasi, to Sub-Judge, Reasi, and before the passing of the impugned order dated 21-05-2001 by the Sub-Judge regarding the satisfaction of the decree, the judgment-debtors approached the High Court in a Revision against the order dated 30-03-2001 passed by Sub-Judge, Reasi, and obtained stay order on 09-04-2001. In the application filed before the Sub-Judge, Reasi, by the judgment-debtors on 21-04-2001, they prayed for recalling the order dated 30th March, 2001 and restraining the decree-holder from interfering into the property in their possession, in view of the stay order passed by the High Court dated 09-04-2001. In the application filed before the Sub-Judge, Reasi, by the judgment-debtors on 21-04-2001, they prayed for recalling the order dated 30th March, 2001 and restraining the decree-holder from interfering into the property in their possession, in view of the stay order passed by the High Court dated 09-04-2001. In the said application, the judgment-debtors unambiguously admitted that they still continue in possession of land and a copy of the stay order passed by the High Court was handed over to the Tehsildar, Reasi when gone on spot for the execution of the warrant on 09-04-2001. For facility of reference, paras 5 and 7 of the application filed by the judgment-debtors dated 21-04-2001are reproduced as under: "5. That the judgement debtors submit that the collector has never gone on spot. However, it transpires that the Tehsildar, Reasi was directed by the Collector to proceed in the matter. It is submitted that the Tehsildar, Reasi has no authority to proceed in the matter nor the Collector has any authority to depute Tehsildar in the matter. The Judgement Debtors submit that it transpires that the Tehsildar, Reasi proceeded in the matter and Tehsildar had gone to Katra on 9.4.2001 and summoned the judgement Debtors. The Judgement Debtors except Shanti Devi and Bimla Devi met Tehsildar Reasi and handed him over the copy of the order of the Honble High Court wherein the Honble Court had directed "Meanwhile till further orders the operation of the impugned order is stayed" And thereafter the Tehsildar Reasi asked the Judgement Debtors that he is going back and report the matter to the S.D.M. Collector, Reasi about the stay of the Honble Court and asked Judgement Debtors to sign a paper that he has visited the spot. The Judgement Debtors namely Rakesh Kumar and Kishore Kumar signed the paper. It is also stated that Tehsildar, Reasi told the Judgement Debtors that he is giving them 2 days time so that the warrant of possession is recalled by the Learned Sub-Judge Reasi as the Honble Court has passed the order of stay." "7. That the Judgement Debtors submit that the possession of the land has not been taken over from the Judgement Debtors and the judgement Debtors still continue in possession of the land. That the Judgement Debtors submit that the possession of the land has not been taken over from the Judgement Debtors and the judgement Debtors still continue in possession of the land. It is further submitted that as the Learned High Court has stayed the Execution, the warrant of possession may kindly be recalled and the Judgement Debtors may kindly be allowed to remain in possession." 8. A plain reading of the aforesaid averments in the application filed by the judgment-debtors on 21-04-2001 makes it clearly manifest that the possession of the land in dispute has not been delivered to the decree-holder in execution of the warrant. It is also evident that this possession was not delivered in view of the stay order issued by the High Court and the copy of which was provided by the judgment-debtors to the Tehsildar on spot on 09-04-2001. In this application, the judgment-debtors admitted that they still continue to be in possession of the suit land and prayed for direction from the Executing Court that decree-holder be restrained not to interfere with their possession, yet the Executing Court, by referring to the report of the Tehsildar and SDM that the possession stands delivered, decree has been satisfied and warrant executed, passed order on 21-05-2001 that the decree has been satisfied and the warrant has been executed, and consign the execution proceedings to record. This order manifestly appears to be illegal being contrary to the facts on the record and unambiguous admission made by judgment-debtors that the possession of the land in suit still continues with them, in their application and further praying to restrain the decree-holder from interfering in their possession. It is further apt to point out that when this order was passed, nobody was present on behalf of the judgment-debtors. If that be the position, it cannot be said with certitude that the possession has been delivered in execution of the warrant and decree satisfied. Even assuming but without so holding that the Tehsildar has reported that in the land in suit, some wooden khokhas were still lying in the land in dispute and the judgment-debtors have undertaken to remove them within two days, would not amount to actual delivery of the possession to the decree-holder. 9. Even assuming but without so holding that the Tehsildar has reported that in the land in suit, some wooden khokhas were still lying in the land in dispute and the judgment-debtors have undertaken to remove them within two days, would not amount to actual delivery of the possession to the decree-holder. 9. The Executing Court has not looked into these aspects of the matter on both factual and legal premises and landed in error in holding that the decree has been satisfied and no second application for execution of such decree would lie. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the existing decree has extinguished. The provisions of Order 21 Rule 2 (1), (2) and (3) pertain to the adjustment of decree and recording the same by Executing Court. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 2 requires that where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court or the decree of any kind is otherwise adjusted in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree-holder, he/she shall certify that payment or adjustment in the Court which is to execute the decree, and the Court is enjoined to record the same. Sub-Rule (2) thereof enables the judgment-debtor or a person who has become surety for him to inform the Court of such payment or adjustment and prescribes the procedure to have it recorded. Sub-Rule (3) prohibits every Court executing the decree from recognizing a payment or adjustment, which is not certified or recorded by the Court under the aforementioned rules. 10. Mr. K.K. Pangotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that decree has been extinguished by the report of the Collector and the Court recording the satisfaction in execution of the decree and delivery of possession should be accepted, as adequate record of the decree in terms of Order 21 Rule 2 and, therefore, it was contended that the petitioners execution application has rightly been declined and dismissed. Undoubtedly, after the rights of the parties are crystallized on passing of a decree by the competent court, in law they are not precluded from settling the disputes outside the court. But to have this adjustment recognized by a court, it has to be recorded under Rule 2 of Order 21 CPC. Undoubtedly, after the rights of the parties are crystallized on passing of a decree by the competent court, in law they are not precluded from settling the disputes outside the court. But to have this adjustment recognized by a court, it has to be recorded under Rule 2 of Order 21 CPC. The consequence of not having it so recorded is contained in Rule 2(3) of Order 21, which prohibits every court from executing the decree from recognizing a payment or adjustment, which has not been certified or recorded by the Court. Where in any execution proceedings objections to executability of a decree is taken under Section 47 CPC on the ground that by virtue of a compromise, the decree can get extinguished and become inexecutable, the spinal question that should be asked is whether the adjustment is certified by the Court whose duty is to execute the decree. The judgment-debtors have no right to plead an unsatisfied adjustment. If the adjustment remains unsatisfied/unjustified, it is entirely the fault of the judgment-debtors. It is not open to the judgment-debtor or any one standing in his shoe to plead an unsatisfied decree by way of defence. An uncertified adjustment cannot be pleaded in bar of execution. 11. A bare perusal of the order dated 21-05-2001 passed by the Executing Court of Sub-Judge, Reasi, shows that there has been no certification by the decree-holder, as required under Order 21 Rule 2 of CPC, with regard to the delivery of the possession in execution of a warrant. Undoubtedly, no particular form of certification by the decree-holder has been prescribed by the Code. The statement as to the payment or adjustment, viz., the delivery of possession of the land in suit, in the application is sufficient certification, and the Executing Court has not been precluded from recognizing it. But the aforesaid order is silent with regard to any such certification by the decree-holder. The statement as to the payment or adjustment, viz., the delivery of possession of the land in suit, in the application is sufficient certification, and the Executing Court has not been precluded from recognizing it. But the aforesaid order is silent with regard to any such certification by the decree-holder. This order manifestly seems to have been passed acting on the report of the Collector, which is evidently contrary to the admission of the judgment-debtors with regard to the delivery of possession in the application filed by them before the same Executing Court in averring therein that since the stay order has been passed in the Revision preferred by them, order of execution of a warrant and delivery of possession passed by the Executing Court on 30-03-2001 be recalled and decree-holder directed not to interfere in their possession as they continue to remain in possession and no such possession has been obtained from them of the land in dispute. In the absence of such certification by the decree-holder with regard to the delivery of possession, order dated 21-05-2001 passed by the Executing Court that the decree has been satisfied, is both legally and factually unsustainable in law. The conclusion reached inevitably, therefore, is that the execution of decree filed by the petitioner and declined by the Executing Court in its impugned order is not barred by Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order 21, for, it obviously shows that the decree has not been satisfied under Sub-Rule (1) or (2) of Rule 2. The non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has rendered the order dated 21-05-2001 invalid. 12. Another vain attempt seeks to have been made by Mr. Pangotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, to deprive the petitioner/decree-holder in seeking legal possession in execution of a decree, in stating that though the order with regard to the satisfaction of the decree has been passed by the Executing Court on 21-05-2001, the second/subsequent application has been filed on 09-03-2002, after about a year. The delay having remained unexplained, it is sufficient to show that the possession was delivered to her and the decree satisfied, as is also disclosed from her statement dated 27-11-2001 before Tehsildar, Reasi, in this regard. In dispelling the contention of the respondents, it is submitted by Mr. The delay having remained unexplained, it is sufficient to show that the possession was delivered to her and the decree satisfied, as is also disclosed from her statement dated 27-11-2001 before Tehsildar, Reasi, in this regard. In dispelling the contention of the respondents, it is submitted by Mr. J.P. Singh that after that, since the passing of the order dated 21-05-2001, the petitioner/decree holder remained engrossed in litigating the same matter before the Additional District Judge in suit for declaration in Revision against the order dated 30-03-2001, in which the stay orders were obtained by the respondents/judgment debtors. The stay order was vacated by the High Court on the withdrawal of the Revision by the judgment-debtors on 16-07-2001, whereas the stay order issued by the Additional District Judge, Reasi, stood vacated vide order dated 16-02-2002, and the subsequent application to initiate proceedings in execution of the decree was instituted before the Executing Court on 09-03-2002. The delay has been sufficiently and satisfactorily explained in filing the subsequent application for the execution of the decree by the petitioner/decree-holder and renders the contention of the respondents/judgment-debtors devoid of any legal force and bereft of any substance to merit acceptance. 13. The Apex Court in case Lakshmi Narayanan v. S.S. Pandian, (2000) 7 SCC 240, while dealing with the identical situation, held that where the certification or adjustment is not recorded, as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 1, the decree is not extinguished and will be executed as it is. The Apex Court further held that: "Requirement of Rule 2 is that executing court must take cognizance of the fact of the compromise and pass an appropriate order accepting or giving effect to it - No formula or specific procedure is prescribed for recording the adjustment - Where the parties entered into a compromise agreement and filed a memo to that effect and the executing court simply dismissed the execution application as "not pressed", the court cannot be held to have recorded the compromise within the meaning of Or. 21 R. 2 - Such a compromise cannot be pleaded to bar the execution of the decree in view of sub-rule (3) of R.2 - Appellant landlord and respondent tenant entering into compromise in respect of decree of eviction during pendency of execution proceedings - Under compromise respondent vacating part of suit premises, parties entering into agreement of lease for three years in respect of remaining portion - Stipulation made that respondent to surrender possession on expiry of three years, otherwise appellant would be entitled to execute decree against him - Upon filing of memo of compromise, executing court dismissing execution application as "not pressed" - Respondent failing to surrender possession within time - Appellant filing application for execution of decree and recovery of possession which allowed - However, respondent filing successful application for withdrawal of said order - Held, there was no recording of the compromise by the executing court - On facts held, even if it was assumed that compromise was recorded, the decree could be executed because the compromise did not have the effect of extinguishing the decree - High Court erred in dismissing appellants revision petition..." 14. It is further meaningful to highlight that when the order dated 21-05-2001 came to be passed by the Sub-Judge, Reasi, in holding that the decree has been satisfied and a warrant was executed and the execution petition be consigned to record, the stay order issued by the High Court with regard to the execution of the warrant for delivery of possession was in operation and stood vacated on the withdrawal of the Revision Petition on 16-07-2001. Not only this, even the stay granted by the Additional District Judge, Reasi, in a suit for declaration to the effect that judgment and decree passed in the case in File No.23 of 1976, entitled Sudershana v. Bodh Raj and Ors., is null and void, as having been done fraudulently, and the interim direction issued on 11-05-2001 by the Additional District Judge was also in operation and stood vacated only on 16-02-2002. When both the stay orders, one issued by the High Court and the other by the Additional District Judge, were in operation and there was admission on the part of the judgment-debtors in the application made before the Executing Court that possession of the land in dispute has not been taken from them and the copy of the Honble High Court staying the operation of the execution of the decree was handed over to the Tehsildar on 09-04-2001 on spot and further praying for recalling of the warrant of possession, the order dated 21-05-2001 recording satisfaction of the decree and delivery of possession barely on the report of the Collector, without any certification from the decree-holder, could not legally be passed. This clearly shows lack of legal acumen, actual approach both to the facts of the case and the settled legal position in passing the order dated 21-05-2001 and further repeated by passing the order impugned in Revision, instead of rectifying/correcting it in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, so as to ensure that the entry in the judicial record does not cause miscarriage of justice. The contentions raised by Mr. Pangotra, respondents Advocate, therefore, are neither palatable nor sound both factually and legally and, thus, declined to accept. 15. In this backdrop, it can safely be said that when the possession has not been delivered legally and actually to the decree-holder, there is no bar to the filing of the second execution application for the execution of the decree and delivery of possession of land, since the decree has not been satisfied. The Executing Court has gravely erred in holding that the warrant has been executed, possession has been delivered and decree satisfied vide its order dated 21-05-2001. 16. It is advantageous to point out that merely the law, which is meant to impart justice and fair play to the litigants is so torn and twisted by a morbid interpretative process that instead of giving haven to the disappointed and dejected litigants it negatives their well-established rights in law. 16. It is advantageous to point out that merely the law, which is meant to impart justice and fair play to the litigants is so torn and twisted by a morbid interpretative process that instead of giving haven to the disappointed and dejected litigants it negatives their well-established rights in law. The present case reveals the sordid tale of a helpless woman, who contested litigation up to the Apex Court for her right and succeeded in getting a relief through out, but to my utter dismay and disappointment when she moved the Executing Court, she has been deprived to reap its fruit with the strange and harsh approach, which seems to have shed all the norms of justice and fair play. 17. This being the position, there is no legal bar to have the decree executed and the Executing Court has clearly erred in declining the prayer of the petitioner for delivery of possession of land in execution of the decree dated 25-01-1986 passed in Civil Suit No.23 of 1976. 18. For the above reasons, I am unable to sustain the orders under challenge. The Revision is, accordingly, allowed. The order impugned in Revision dated 09-02-2004 of the Sub-Judge, Katra and also the order dated 21-05-2001 passed by the Sub-Judge, Reasi, are set aside. Consequently, the Executing Court shall give effect to the order passed on 30-03-2001 expeditiously. 19. The costs shall abide the result.