Judgment : Both the above Writ Petitions challenge a common order dated 16.01.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji Goa, whereby the execution proceedings initiated by the petitioners herein came to be dismissed and execution proceedings initiated by the respondents were disposed of by directing the petitioners to maintain status quo. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit against the petitioners inter-alia seeking for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from in any way interfering or demolishing the house occupied by the respondents in the property surveyed under no.52/10 of Diwar Village. In the said suit, the petitioners filed a counter claim inter-alia contending that there was an encroachment carried out by the respondents towards the northern and eastern side of the house. After the issues and trial came to be conducted by the learned Trial Judge, by judgment and decree dated 09.07.1996 the suit filed by the respondents was partly decreed whereas the counter claim filed by the petitioners came to be rejected. The decree granted in favour of the respondents by the learned Trial Judge was inter-alia to the effect that the petitioners were restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering in any manner with the house occupied by the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioners preferred a First Appeal before the learned District Judge which came to be rejected by judgment and decree dated 07.04.1998. The petitioners carried their challenge to this Court by filing Second Appeal challenging the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court and by judgment and decree dated 17.03.2004 passed in Second Appeal No. 17/98 this Court partly allowed the Second Appeal preferred by the petitioners and partly allowed the counter claim to the extent that the respondents were directed to demolish the encroachment towards the northern side of the house. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an execution application before the learned Trial Judge to execute the decree passed in the counter claim and demolish the illegal extension carried out by the respondents towards the northern side of the house. It appears that the respondents also sought to execute the decree of permanent injunction by filing separate execution proceedings. By the impugned order dated 16.01.2007, the learned Judge disposed of both the execution applications in the manner referred to herein above. It appears that the respondents also sought to execute the decree of permanent injunction by filing separate execution proceedings. By the impugned order dated 16.01.2007, the learned Judge disposed of both the execution applications in the manner referred to herein above. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petitions inter-alia seeking to quash the orders passed by the learned Executing Court. 4. Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken me through the impugned order passed by the Executing Court and pointed out that the learned Judge has dismissed the execution application essentially on the ground that as the petitioners have not complied with their obligations in terms of the decree, the question of seeking any execution with regard to part of the decree granted in favour of the petitioners would not arise. The learned Senior Counsel has thereafter taken me through the judgment passed by this Court while disposing of the said Second Appeal and pointed out that there was a specific direction to the effect that the respondents were called upon to demolish an encroachment of six metres towards the northern side of the disputed house. The learned Senior Counsel has thereafter pointed out that it is well settled that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and as such, the question of dismissing the execution application would not arise. The learned Senior Counsel has further pointed out that there are no reciprocal obligations sought to be executed as according to him, the permanent injunction was with regard to the house which is in operation and as such, there is nothing to be executed by the respondents by filing such execution application. The learned Senior Counsel as such submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Senior Counsel has also pointed out that the learned Judge was not justified to direct the petitioners to maintain the status quo when the injunction has already been operating in favour of the respondents with regard to the disputed house. 5. On the other hand, Shri Tamba, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently argued that unless and until the petitioners have complied with the obligations as stated in the decree for permanent injunction, the question of directing the respondents to demolish the alleged encroachment would not arise. 5. On the other hand, Shri Tamba, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently argued that unless and until the petitioners have complied with the obligations as stated in the decree for permanent injunction, the question of directing the respondents to demolish the alleged encroachment would not arise. The learned counsel further pointed out that as the alleged encroachment is part of the house and as there is a restraint order against the petitioners from interfering with the suit house, it is not open to the petitioners to seek the execution of the decree passed in the counter claim and seek direction to demolish such alleged encroachment. The learned counsel has taken me through the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in Second Appeal and pointed out that the learned Judge has taken note of the fact that there was an order of permanent injunction in favour of the respondents while passing the direction to demolish the said encroachment. The learned counsel further pointed out that it is well settled by the Apex Court that when there are reciprocal obligations, a party cannot seek execution of his part of the decree unless and until other obligations imposed upon the party are complied with. The learned counsel has taken me through the impugned order passed by the learned Judge and pointed out that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record and passed the impugned order. The learned counsel as such submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels and I have gone through the records. It is well settled that the counter claim filed in the suit is a cross suit and a decree passed in the counter claim can be independently executed in specific circumstances. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the suit filed by the respondents was partly decreed inter-alia restraining the petitioners from interfering with the disputed house occupied by the respondents herein. It is also to be noted that in the decree disposing the counter claim filed by the petitioners, there was specific direction to demolish the encroachment towards the northern side. It is also to be noted that in the decree disposing the counter claim filed by the petitioners, there was specific direction to demolish the encroachment towards the northern side. Taking note of the fact that the counter claim was filed in the same suit and the direction is specific to demolish the six metres encroachment in the lane in between the houses occupied by the petitioners and the respondents, I find that the learned Judge was not justified to dismiss the execution application filed by the petitioners. 7. The learned Judge while passing the impugned order has essentially considered the matter in an equitable consideration. A decree passed by the Court has to lead to its logical conclusion and the rights of the parties which have crystalised cannot be allowed to be defeated on equitable consideration. In such circumstances, the learned Judge was not justified to observe that unless and until the petitioners complied with the direction in the decree passed in favour of the respondents, it was not open to them to execute the decree. 8. In any event, on perusal of the decree passed in favour of the respondents, the relief granted is only in the nature of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering in the suit house. Hence, there is nothing to be complied with in the execution for permanent injunction. It is not the case of the petitioners that after the permanent injunction was granted something has been done which would defeat the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the respondents. In case of breach of the judgment of the permanent injunction, Civil Procedure Code envisages the manner in which such situations are to be taken care of. There is nothing shown or disclosed in the decree passed in favour of the respondents to the effect that any obligations had to be complied with by the petitioners before seeking for the execution of the decree passed in their favour. On perusal of the decree passed in favour of the petitioners in the counter claim, it clearly specifies that the encroachment to the extent of six metres towards the northern side of the disputed house has been ordered to be demolished. The Executing Court was not justified to come to the conclusion that such encroachment is part of the house where the permanent injunction is operating against the petitioners. The Executing Court was not justified to come to the conclusion that such encroachment is part of the house where the permanent injunction is operating against the petitioners. The permanent injunction is in respect of the house and not in respect of the encroachment carried out towards the northern side obstructing the lane in between the property of the petitioners and the respondents. The house referred to in the decree passed in favour of the respondents by no stretch of imagination can encompass the illegal extension ordered to be demolished by this Court while disposing of the Second Appeal preferred by the petitioners. In the light of the observations made herein above, I find that the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned order dismissing the execution application filed by the petitioners. Once the permanent injunction has been granted in favour of the respondents, the question of granting any other order of status quo is totally misplaced. The order of permanent injunction is in operation and the rights of the parties stand crystalised in terms of the judgment of permanent injunction. 9. At this stage, Shri Tamba, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that six metres encroachment allegedly directed to be demolished by decree passed in the counter claim has not been properly identified. As far as such contention is concerned, it is not in dispute that with regard to the execution or implementation of the decree, it is always open to the party to file an appropriate application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code and in case such an application is filed, the learned Judge would have to consider the same after hearing the parties in accordance with law. 10. Be that as it may, in view of the above, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 16.01.2007 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Execution Application nos. 34/2004 and 24/2005 are restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji. (iii) The learned Judge is directed to proceed with the execution applications in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. (iv) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (ii) The Execution Application nos. 34/2004 and 24/2005 are restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji. (iii) The learned Judge is directed to proceed with the execution applications in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. (iv) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (v) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge on 01.04.2013 at 10.00 a.m. (vi) The petitions stand disposed of accordingly.