AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-HEARD.
THE operative portion of the order passed by the Forum below in O.P. No. 82/1996 reads thus : "THE opposite party is directed to furnish the building the revision list extract of the complainant bearing No. T.V.C.C. 29/8026 for the period from 1974-1979 and in the alternative to refund the proportionate fee with a reply specifying the reason for non-issue to the complainant".
It is also proper to extract here the finding recorded by way of answering issue No. 2 in O.P. No. 82/1998 by the Forum below: "So we find that this is a fit case for directing the opposite party either to furnish the revision list extract for the period from 1974-1979 or to refund the proportionate fee to the complainant. This issue is answered accordingly".
Thus from a combined or conjoint reading of both the finding recorded under issue No. 2 and operative portion of order granting relief it is explicitly clear that the forum below has given option to the revision petitioner either to furnish the building tax revision list extract of the building of the complainant bearing No. T.V.C.C. 29/8026 for the period from 1974-1979 or "in the alternative to refund the proportionate fee with a reply specifying the reason for the non issue to the complainant".
It is trite law that execution Court cannot go behind the decree and the same principle can be applied here also. As option is given to the opposite party in the O.P. either to comply with the first part of the operative portion of the order above extracted or to comply with the 2nd part of the operative portion it is for the opposite party/revision petitioner to choose which of the two directions is to be complied with by him.
IT is submitted on behalf of the revision petitioner that he had complied with the second part of the operative portion of the order i.e., refunded the pro-portionate fee with a certificate specifying the reason for the non-issue to the complainant and thus satisfied the order passed by the Forum below. The respondent has not chosen to contest the revision. On the basis of the submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner we uphold his contention that the alternative relief granted has been complied with by the revision petition i.e., satisfied the order and nothing remained to be executed. As the alternative relief granted has been complied with by the revision petitioner nothing remains to be executed and the lower Forum erred in directing the revision petitioner to comply with the other part of relief granted. Hence the revision is allowed setting aside the impugned order. Revision Petition allowed.