Vishnu Vishwas @ Munna Vishwas vs Smt. Bhagmati & Ors.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor assailing the order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned 4th Additional Judge to the Court of the learned First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bilaspur, in Misc. Case No. CJ/12/2012, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”), has been dismissed. The petitioner prayed for the following relief in the writ petition:-

The petitioner, appearing in person, would submit that the learned Executing Court has committed an error in dismissing the application under Section 151 of the CPC without properly examining the terms and scope of the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2004 passed in Civil Suit No. 92-A/2001. The decree-holder had initiated execution proceedings in Misc. Civil Case No. CJ/12/2012 for execution of the said decree, whereby relief of declaration, permanent injunction and possession in respect of the suit property carved out of Khasra No. 789/4, admeasuring 1770 sq. ft., was granted in favour of the decree-holder. It is submitted that the original judgment and decree did not contain any specific direction for demolition of the wall standing over the western portion of the petitioner's house or for delivery of possession of 88.5 sq. ft. of land. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the Executing Court could not enlarge or travel beyond the decree by directing demolition of the wall or delivery of an additional portion of land which, according to him, was never specifically decreed by the trial Court.

The petitioner would further submit that, in his application under Section 151 of the CPC, he had brought to the notice of the Executing Court that subsequent mutation proceedings had been carried out in respect of Khasra No. 789/8, admeasuring 0.0160 hectare (1800 sq. ft.), and that there was a dispute regarding the actual measurement and identity of the property. It was specifically pleaded that, against the purchased area of 1800 sq. ft., only about 1750 sq. ft. was available on the spot and that there was thus a discrepancy of approximately 50 sq. ft. The petitioner had, therefore, sought a report from the Tahsildar, Bilaspur, so that the actual position, measurement and identity of the property could be ascertained and the execution proceedings could be confined strictly to the property covered by the decree. According to the petitioner, the said prayer was neither frivolous nor intended to delay the execution, but was made only to remove the ambiguity concerning the suit property; however, the learned Executing Court rejected the application without undertaking such verification. He would also submit that the subsequent order passed by the learned Executing Court whereby 88.5 sq. ft. of land was directed to be delivered to the decree-holder amounts, in substance, to an enlargement or modification of the original decree and could not have been made in execution proceedings, particularly when the original judgment and decree dated 27.04.2004 did not contain any direction for demolition of the wall or delivery of the said 88.5 sq. ft. portion. It is his further contention that the Executing Court is bound to execute the decree as it stands and cannot go behind, alter or add to the decree under the guise of execution.

He would also submit that though there is no specific measurement in the impugned decree, to avoid any controversy, he already vacated the 90 Sqr. Ft. of the subject land on 22.03.2024 and now the decree has become satisfied, and no further proceedings are required in the execution case. He would refer to his affidavit dated 28.03.2024, submitted before the learned Executing Court, and a copy of the same has also been filed in the petition on 04.06.2026 along with an application for taking documents on record.

He would submit that the application under Section 151 CPC was filed to bring this jurisdictional issue to the notice of the Executing Court, but the same has been dismissed without properly considering the contents of the decree and the documents placed on record. He would, therefore, contend that the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 is erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles governing execution of a decree and deserves to be set aside, and the execution proceedings may be directed to be closed.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/decree-holder would submit that the present writ petition is misconceived and has been preferred only with a view to delay and obstruct the execution of the decree dated 27.04.2004 passed in Civil Suit No. 92-A/2001, which has attained finality. It is submitted that the petitioner, being the judgment-debtor, cannot seek to reopen or indirectly challenge the decree under the guise of an application under Section 151 of the CPC. The alleged subsequent mutation in respect of Khasra No. 789/8, the alleged discrepancy in the area purchased by the petitioner, and the claim of shortage of 50 sq. ft. are wholly irrelevant to the execution of the decree in favour of the respondent. Revenue entries or subsequent mutation proceedings cannot override a decree of a competent Civil Court. The prayer for obtaining a fresh report from the Tahsildar is, therefore, nothing but an attempt to create an artificial dispute regarding the identity and measurement of the decretal property and to prolong the execution proceedings. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2004, he ought to have challenged the same before the competent appellate forum and cannot seek its reconsideration in execution proceedings. He would further submit that the Executing Court has neither travelled beyond the decree nor modified the same; rather, it has only taken steps necessary for giving effect to the relief granted by the trial Court. The decree has to be construed as a whole, and the mere absence of a separate recital regarding demolition of the wall cannot defeat the substantive relief of possession granted in respect of the decretal property. If any structure of the judgment-debtor obstructs delivery of possession of the property covered by the decree, its removal is merely a mode of execution and does not amount to enlargement of the decree. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked by the judgment-debtor to stall execution or to obtain a fresh adjudication of matters which already stand concluded. The learned Executing Court, upon consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner, has rightly dismissed the application, and no jurisdictional error, perversity or manifest illegality has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition and the record of the executing court, which has been called by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2026.

Before entering into consideration, it would be relevant here to observe various order sheets of the learned executing court in the execution proceeding, by which the applications of the respective parties have been decided. From the record of the learned executing Court, it transpires that the application for execution of the decree dated 27.04.2004 was filed on 18.04.2006. Vide order dated 29.12.2006, the order for delivery of possession of 88.5 Sqr. Ft. out of total 1770 Sqr. Ft. of land of Kh. No. 789/4 was passed, and a possession warrant was issued. For one or other reason, the decree could not be executed, and then the execution of the decree through special process server was passed on 15.11.2007. On 11.12.2007, an application under Section 47 of the CPC was filed by the judgment debtor, which was allowed on 17.01.2008, in which the commissioner’s report was considered and held that the decree holder is entitled for vacant possession of 88.5 Sqr. Ft. (3 x 59/2) of land and directed the judgment debtor to remove the construction from there on his own and hand over the possession to the decree holder. Thereafter, on 23.01.2008, another application under Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC was filed by the judgment debtor, which was allowed on 19.09.2008, and further proceedings of the execution case were stayed till the decision of another Civil Suit No. 02-A/2008. Thereafter, till 14.02.2019, the execution proceedings were held up.

On 14.02.2019, in compliance of the order dated 24.10.2018, the parties have submitted the status of the Civil Suit No. 02-A/2008 (New No. was 207-A/2014) by which the Civil Suit was disposed of on 05.08.2017. Thereafter, the learned executing Court again proceeded in the case. On 26.03.2019, an application under Section 151 of CPC was filed by the judgment debtor, which was disposed of on 23.10.2019 on the condition that if the judgment debtor fails to produce any stay order, the possession warrant should be issued. After the Covid-19 pandemic, the proceedings again started by the learned trial Court. On 23.06.2023, the execution of the possession warrant was ordered to be in the presence of police force as the judgment debtor made hindrance in execution of the decree. On 14.06.2024, the judgment debtor has filed his affidavit stating therein that he has already vacated the 90 ft. of the disputed part of the land by removing the sunshade, and thereby the decree is satisfied. The learned executing Court has not accepted the explanation submitted by the judgment debtor through his affidavit and ordered the issuance of a possession warrant as per the decree. Thereafter, on 18.07.2024, the judgment debtor has filed another application under Order 21 Rule 99 of the CPC, which was decided on 05.08.2024, and the application was dismissed. In its detailed order, the learned executing Court considered all the aspects of the case as well as the contents of the affidavit of the judgment debtor regarding handing over the vacant possession of the suit land. Still, the decree could not be executed for one or another reason, and the dates were adjourned.

The facts emerging from the record are that in Civil Suit No. 92-A/2001, the learned trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 27.04.2004, granted in favour of respondent No.1 the relief of declaration, permanent injunction and possession in respect of the suit property described in the plaint and decree. The said decree has attained finality and, consequently, the petitioner/judgment-debtor cannot, in the present execution proceedings or by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC, seek to reopen the findings recorded in the original suit. The limited question before this Court is, therefore, whether the learned Executing Court, while dealing with the petitioner's application, was justified in declining to examine his objection that the decree did not specifically direct demolition of the wall or delivery of possession of a separately identified portion measuring 88.5 sq. ft. It is a settled principle of execution law that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, nor can it add to, alter or modify the substantive relief granted by the Court which passed the decree. At the same time, the decree is required to be construed as a whole and the Executing Court possesses jurisdiction to issue consequential directions which are necessary for giving effect to the decree, provided such directions do not enlarge the relief granted therein.

In the present case, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that although the decree granted possession of the suit property, there is no express direction in the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2004 for demolition of the western wall of his house or for delivery of a separately demarcated area of 88.5 sq. ft. The petitioner has also relied upon the subsequent revenue proceedings relating to Khasra No. 789/8, admeasuring 0.0160 hectare, and has asserted that against the area of 1800 sq. ft. allegedly purchased by him, only about 1750 sq. ft. is available on the spot, thereby giving rise to a dispute regarding the actual measurement and identification of the property. On this basis, he sought a report from the Tahsildar, Bilaspur. In the considered opinion of this Court, the subsequent mutation or revenue entry cannot, by itself, confer any right contrary to the decree or modify the property adjudicated upon by the Civil Court. Nevertheless, where the judgment-debtor specifically raises a dispute regarding the physical identity, measurement and location of the property sought to be delivered in execution, the Executing Court is required to determine whether such dispute can be resolved on the basis of the decree and the existing record. Such an exercise would not amount to going behind the decree, so long as it is confined to identification and implementation of the property actually covered by the decree.

The further factual aspect which assumes significance is the petitioner's submission that he had already vacated and delivered possession of approximately 90 sq. ft. of the disputed land on 22.03.2024 and that, therefore, no further execution remains to be undertaken. In support thereof, reliance has been placed upon the affidavit dated 28.03.2024 stated to have been filed before the learned Executing Court. The said assertion has to be considered in the context of the decree-holder's stand and the execution record. Mere filing of an affidavit by the judgment-debtor cannot, by itself, establish satisfaction of the decree unless the factum and extent of delivery of possession are accepted by the decree-holder or otherwise established before the Executing Court. Conversely, the decree-holder cannot claim delivery of an area in excess of what is covered by the decree merely on the ground that such delivery or demolition is considered necessary by her. The satisfaction or partial satisfaction of a decree is essentially a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Executing Court, which is competent to examine the relevant documents, the earlier proceedings and the actual position at the site.

The reliance placed by the petitioner upon Section 151 CPC also requires to be considered in its proper perspective. The inherent power under Section 151 CPC is intended to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the Court; it cannot be exercised in a manner inconsistent with an express provision of the CPC or for granting substantive relief which was not granted by the original decree. Equally, the provision cannot be invoked by a judgment-debtor merely to protract execution of a decree which has attained finality. Therefore, the petitioner's application could not have been allowed for the purpose of re-adjudicating his title, questioning the validity of the decree or altering the rights finally determined therein. However, his limited request for verification of the identity and measurement of the decretal property, coupled with the specific plea that possession of approximately 90 sq. ft. had already been delivered, was required to be examined with reference to the execution record, particularly when the ultimate object of execution is to secure satisfaction of the decree and not to confer upon either party a relief beyond the decree.

Thus, this Court finds that the learned Executing Court was justified in declining to reopen or modify the decree dated 27.04.2004; however, the impugned order does not satisfactorily deal with the petitioner's specific factual objections concerning the alleged delivery of 90 sq. ft., the identification and measurement of the decretal property and the necessity, if any, of further execution. The distinction between a consequential step necessary for execution of the decree and an act which amounts to enlargement of the decree is material. If demolition of the wall is merely consequential to delivery of the very property covered by the decree, the same may be permissible as a mode of execution; but if such demolition results in delivery of a portion which was not the subject matter of the decree, the Executing Court would lack jurisdiction to grant such enlarged relief. This aspect is required to be determined on the basis of the decree, the pleadings, the execution proceedings and the actual identification of the property, and not merely on the assertion of either party.

In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter deserves limited interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 passed in Misc. Case No. CJ/12/2012 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the learned Executing Court for fresh consideration of the application under Section 151 CPC, confined strictly to the question of execution and satisfaction of the decree dated 27.04.2004.

The learned Executing Court shall examine the decree as it stands, the petitioner's affidavit dated 28.03.2024 and other documents relied upon by him, the objection of the decree-holder, and shall determine whether any portion of the decretal property remains to be delivered. If the identity or measurement of the decretal property cannot be determined from the existing record, the Executing Court may, if considered necessary, obtain a report from the competent revenue authority for the limited purpose of identification and measurement. Such exercise shall not be construed as permitting either party to reopen, vary or enlarge the decree.

Needless to say, if the decree is found to have already been satisfied, the execution proceedings shall be dealt with accordingly; otherwise, the Executing Court shall proceed only to the extent necessary for enforcement of the decree. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

No orders as to costs.

Registry is directed to send back the record of the Executing Court forthwith along with a copy of this order for information and necessary compliance.