JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral):- The revision petition is against an order dismissing an application filed by the decree holder complaining of disobedience of a decree for injunction in his execution petition filed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. At the time of the suit the plaintiff had apprehended some construction as sought to be made by the judgment debtor and the decree has been passed restraining the defendant from putting up any construction. When the execution petition was filed contending that the in defiance of the decree the defendant has made some constructions, the defence was two fold; i) the construction was there already prior to the decree and therefore decree has become in executable and ii) the plaintiff has not established that the defendant has done any act in the suit property to be liable for disobedience of the decree. 2. The executing court found that the petitioner himself admitted that he did not know whether any construction had been made by the Municipal Committee prior to the passing of the decree and that further he had not visited the property for nearly seven years when he gave evidence. The court found these admissions to be fatal and held therefore that the plaintiff had not established the disobedience of the decree. 3. I find that the order passed by the Executing Court is erroneous, for, it cast the burden wrongly on the decree holder to prove that there was no construction by the defendant before the decree and it came about subsequently when the plaintiff had obtained a decree, it was enough to prove his entitlement to the entire subject matter contained in the decree. The defendant who suffered the decree cannot plead inexecutability of the decree as defence by pointing out some construction had been made before the decree. If the court had any doubt of whether the defendant’s construction or road had been made anywhere in the suit property, the best method of resolving the controversy in execution should have been to appoint a Local Commissioner, to take the assistance of the Village official such as Kanungo or Naib Tehsildar to demarcate the property and see whether any construction or road as complained of by the decree holder existed at the suit property or not. The executing court is bound to ensure that its own decree is obeyed in letter and spirit. The executing court is bound to ensure that its own decree is obeyed in letter and spirit. It would mean abdication of court’s duty to allow for a decree to be flouted by a defence that the court’s decree had become inexecutable by an act that had taken place subsequent to the suit but before the decree. 4. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Executing court which shall appoint a Local Commissioner to demarcate the property with the assistance of the Kanungo of the village concerned and secure a report and dispose of the petition filed by the decree holder in accordance with law. The petitioner shall bear the expenses of the Commission and the ultimate costs will abide by the decision rendered by the Executing Court. 5. The civil revision is allowed on the above terms. The parties shall appear before the Executing Court on 3.12.2013. ---------0.B.S.0------------