ORDER : Petitioners being the DHrs in Execution 457/2020, are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated 28.9.2020, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby, learned Judge of the court below has restricted the execution of the decree in question to the premises admeasuring 1500 sft. and thereby, leaving the other small premises admeasuring 150 sft., situate beneath the staircase leading to the first floor. 2. After service of notice, the respondent-tenant having entered appearance through his counsel, vehemently opposes the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been predicated; the gist of his defence is that the petitioners subsequent to passing of the eviction decree has admitted in the execution proceedings that the smaller portion admeasuring 150 sft. is not part of the demise of the lease and therefore, impugned order cannot be faltered. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) Petitioners suit in O.S.No.2627/2014 was for a decree of eviction; the description of the suit property in the plaint schedule admittedly includes both the premises namely the one admeasuring 1500 sft. and the other admeasuring 150 sft.; the plaint schedule is as under: “SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the premises measuring 800 square feet in the Basement Floor, 1100 square feet in the Ground floor, 900 square feet in the first floor of the premises and another small premises measuring about 150 square feet under the staircase in the 8th ground floor of premises bearing No.106, Cross, East Park Road, Malleswaram, Bengaluru – 560 003 and bounded as follows….” (Highlighting is by this Court) Thus there is no dispute as to the property described in the schedule which obviously includes the small premises admeasuring 150 sft. and that is how the respondent- tenant has understood it. and that is how the respondent- tenant has understood it. (b) The respondent–tenant had remained in arrears of rent for years; the application moved by the petitioners for a direction for the payment of arrears of rent in lakhs of rupees, was negatived by the learned trial Judge; however, this Court in petitioners’ earlier W.P.No.46851/2018 decided on 25.10.2019 reversed the said order and issued the following direction: “In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned order is set at naught; petitioners subject application having been favoured, a direction issues to the respondent – tenant to deposit all the arrears of rent in the Court below within a period of eight weeks, failing which, his defence shall be struck off and the suit shall be decreed at once. The Court below shall not precipitate the suit proceedings till after the respondent-tenant makes the payment as above, or, the period of eight weeks expires, whichever is earlier. The respondent-tenant is liable to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioners.” (c) The challenge to the judgment in the said writ petition by the respondent-tenant in SLP No.30095/2019, came to be rejected by the Apex Court vide order dated 07.01.2020; the text of which is as under: “Heard We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” (d) Despite the above, the respondent-tenant has not deposited any arrears of rent till date; he also has not paid the costs awarded by this court earlier, on account of his unscrupulous conduct of squatting on the tenanted premises and doing business without paying any rent since 2014; nor has he offered any plausible explanation for not obeying the said writ; now, the arrears of rent are stated to have exceeded Rs.1,20,00,000/-; in terms of the direction of this Court, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit with cost, vide order dated 18.01.2020 which reads as under: “ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with cost. The plaintiffs are entitled for arrears of rent/damages of Rs.79,27,000/-(rupees Seventy Nine Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand only) from the defendant subject to payment of Court fee. The plaintiffs are entitled for arrears of rent/damages of Rs.79,27,000/-(rupees Seventy Nine Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand only) from the defendant subject to payment of Court fee. With regard to arrears of rent/damages, charge is created on the property of defendant bearing No.24, Margosa road, now 3rd main road, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Ward No.7, consisting of a hall, small room, a kitchen, a bathroom and a toilet approximately valued at Rs.65,00,000/-. Accordingly, I.A.No.10 is disposed off.” The said order having not been put in challenge further, has attained finality. (e) Petitioner had put the said decree in enforcement by filing Ex. No.457/2020 wherein the learned judge of the Court below had issued Delivery Warrant on 22.09.2020 in respect of the entire suit schedule property; however, later vide order dated 28.09.2020, this Delivery Warrant has been restricted to the premises admeasuring 1500 sft. by excluding the other smaller one admeasuring 150 sft.; this was done by the learned Judge unilaterally by acting on the respondent- JDr’s Memo dated 28.9.2020 which has the following text: “The Decree Holders in the above case misrepresent before this Hon’ble Court that they are the owners of 150 square feet under the Staircase in ground floor, though this Hon’ble Court was pleased to form opinion in the judgment that the Decree Holders are not owners of the above said 150 square feet. Hence, the judgment debtor prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to modify the order dated 22.09.2020 passed in the above case. Further, this Hon’ble court answered in Issue No.1 and additional issue No.1 that the plaintiff/decree holders are not the owners/landlords with in respect 150 sq ft. in page No.11 of the Judgment.” (f) The impugned order whereby the execution is confined to and now accomplished, as well, is reproduced below with the striking lines, as they are, for the ease of understanding: “Issue Delivery Warrant to the following schedule property; All the piece and parcel of the premises measuring 80sq.ft in the Basement Floor, 1100 Sq.ft in the Ground Floor, 900 Square Feet in the first floor of the premises and CHK (another small premises measuring about 150 sq. ft) under the Staircase in the ground floor of the premises bearing No.106, 8th Cross, East Park Road, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru – 560 003 and bounded as follows:” This could not have been done by the Court below inasmuch as, the smaller premises also has been very much a part of the property described in the suit schedule; in terms of the aforesaid writ of this court, the suit has been decreed as sought for; there was no question of holding any trial of the suit, because of the specific order of this Court for decreeing the same; therefore whatever has been done by the court below beyond the permissible limit needs to be eschewed from the record; nothing of the same can be taken cognizance of. (g) It is true that the decree needs to accord with the judgment; however, the enforcement of a decree/order of a competent court cannot be resisted on the ground per se that it does not so accord; a wrong decree nevertheless binding & enforceable unless it is set at naught on a proper challenge being laid in an appropriate proceeding: vide State of Punjab Vs. Gurudev Singh, AIR 1992 SC 111 , paragraphs 6 & 7; an argument to the contrary would concede power to a party to disobey a decree on his self-judgment as to its being bad, when only a majistra dicta can alone do it; this is not desirable in a system governed by rule of law; admittedly, no such challenge is laid to the decree, even to this day; but an application for the amendment of the decree is stated to be pending and its aspects are discussed & decided infra. (h) Any civilized system of Administration of Justice functions on a fundamental norm of “Justice According to Law” nearly as discussed by Roscoe Pound, in the title article, 12 Louisiana Law. Review. (h) Any civilized system of Administration of Justice functions on a fundamental norm of “Justice According to Law” nearly as discussed by Roscoe Pound, in the title article, 12 Louisiana Law. Review. 1952 published by YALE University Press, New Haven; there may be cases wherein courts grant indulgence even where justice appears to lie in the penumbra of law; however the case at hands is not one such; what the learned Judge of the court below has done by the impugned order reminds an allegory ascribed to the Roman stoic philosopher Seneca (c.4 BC-AD 65); in his work De Ira (On Anger); he narrates an event: a Roman statesman Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, who in a fit of anger had ordered the execution of a soldier who had returned alone after enjoying his leisure, leaving his comrade; Piso had assumed that soldier had killed the comrade; however, just before the execution of the soldier, the missing comrade arrived on the scene; therefore, a Centurion who was ordained to oversee the execution, stopped beheading; all they went back to Piso and pleaded for suspension of the warrant of execution on the ground of innocence of the soldier; however, this made Piso so angry that he ordered the execution of all the three: the execution of the solider was to be carried out as the order was already given; the Centurian was ordered to be executed for failing to oversee the execution for which he was appointed; in addition, the comrade was ordered to be executed since his appearance caused two innocent persons loosing their lives. (i) What is stated above is the historic background that led to Seneca coining the maxim fiat justitia ruat cælum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall"; the maxim signifies the belief that, justice must be realized regardless of consequences; this maxim became popular after the noted judge William Murray’s, decision in John Wilkes Case in 1770; since then, the sages of law continued to use the maxim to dispel the argument of undesirable consequences often pressed into service for resisting the execution of decrees & orders of courts; the impugned order runs counter to the spirit of the maxim. (j) Learned counsel for the JDr vehemently contends that the courts of law are there to do justice on the principle of ex dubito justitiae; however, the culpable conduct of the petitioner does not justify the invocation of this equitable maxim; as already mentioned above, he happens to be an unscrupulous businessman squatting on others’ property without paying rent, for years; that was the reason why he was directed to deposit the rent within a specified period and asked to pay heavy costs, as well; despite the peremptory order in the earlier writ petition, he chose not to obey the same; even before this court, he refused to avail the opportunity given for making the payment of arrears of rent (now stated to be Rs.1,20,00,000/-) in easy installments; this court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction constitutionally vested in it under Article 227 need not show leniency to such an unscrupulous litigant. (k) Learned counsel for the respondent pleaded with passion that he has already filed an application for the modification of the decree for excluding the small premises in question and therefore a direction be issued to the court below to consider the same; this court declines to accede to that request, because admittedly, he is not the owner of that premises too; he has neither produced any evidence either in the court below or before this court to show that he has paid any rent for the said premises; in fact, he has not taken up such a plea at all; apparently, he is squatting on this property, free of cost and still he wants to retain it for enjoyment; he has troubled the petitioners all through; however, the rejection of this contention shall not come in the way of the issue as to ownership of the subject premises being litigated by the right persons, if any, in an appropriate proceeding; a loud message needs to go to the circles that be, that the courts would not tolerate the unscrupulous litigants. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned order to the extent it excludes the smaller portion of 150 sft. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned order to the extent it excludes the smaller portion of 150 sft. from execution, is set at naught; the learned judge of the Executing Court is requested to accomplish the execution of the remaining part of the decree that comprises the said smaller premises, forthwith, if necessary with the police aid, and further, to report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court. Costs reluctantly made easy.