TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst Kuna Puri and Mohan Puri (judgment debtors petitioners are legal representatives of Kuna Puri and Mohan Puri) seeking declaration regarding their right to worship in Bhanwal Mata Ji temple. 3. The said suit was dismissed by the learned civil Judge, Merta vide judgment and decree dtd. 30.1 1.1956. Against the judgment and decree dtd. 30.1 1.1956, Ram Pal Puri filed a civil appeal No. 35/57 in the court of Dist. Judge, Merta in which a decree by way of compromise was passed declaring the rights of the worship between the parties (Rampal Puri and Mohan Puri) in the manner that both the parties would have right of worship and receiving offerings 6 months each in a year by turn and thereafter turn by turn, they would perform the Seva Puja and receive offerings and the offerings which were being presented before the deity would be taken by that party in whose favour turn was running. 4. That compromise decree which was passed on 29.4.1957 was again amended on the basis of compromise through judgment and decree dtd. 14.1.1970 passed by the Dist. Judge, Merta and according to fresh compromise decree and 14.1.1970, name of Kuna Puri was also added along with Mohan Puri (present petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia holding i) That legal representatives of Ram Pal Puri (decree holder) had right to receive offerings and perform Seva Puja for one year, while legal representatives of Mohan Puri and Kuna Puri had right to receive offerings and perform Seva Puja for 6 months' each in a year on turn by turn. ii) That period of limitation for execution of decree starts from the date when obstruction was put and since in this case obstruction was put by the judgment debtors not from the date when the compromise decree was passed, but later on, therefore, to say that execution application was time barred is wrong and hence, preliminary objection that the execution application was time barred was rejected by the learned Executing Court. iii) That in the execution proceedings, the present judgment debtors have no right to say that the decree was void because the Executing court has got no business to make comments about the proprietary and legality of the decree and that objection was also rejected and thus, the learned Executing Court came to the conclusion that proprietary of the decree could not be questioned in execution proceedings. iv) On the point that the decree was executable or not, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order dtd. 18.5.2004 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners judgment debtors. POINT No. 1. 16. In the present case, the first decree was passed on 29.4.1957 and the said decree was amended on 14.1.1970, whereas the execution application was filed in the year 2004 and it is specific finding of the learned Executing Court that since the decree dtd. 14.1.1970 was being complied with by the parties and since later on the present petitioners - judgment debtors put obstructions and therefore, the limitation would start from the date when the obstruction was put and not from the date of passing of the decree. In my considered opinion, the preliminary objection of the petitioners judgment debtors that the execution application was time barred was rightly rejected by the learned Executing Court as the limitation would start from the date when the obstruction was put by the petitioners - judgment debtors and thus, the findings of the learned Executing Court that the execution application was within limitation are liable to be confirmed one and hence the first preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners - judgment debtors stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion application or not? 25. There is no dispute on the point that a declaratory decree cannot be executed as has been held by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Parkash Chand (supra). The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Parkash Chand (supra), has held as under: A declaratory decree cannot be executed as it only declares the rights of the decree-holder qua the judgment-debtor and does not, in terms, direct the judgment-debtor to do or to refrain from doing any particular act or things. Since there is no command issued to the judgment-debtor to obey, the civil process cannot be issued for the compliance of that mandate or command. The decree holder is free to seek his legal remedies by way of suit or otherwise on the basis of the declaration given in his favour. 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mangi Lal Sharma (supra), has held that declaratory decree merely declares he right of the decree holder vis-a-vis the judgment debtor and no relief was further claimed nor any direction was given, in such a case execution of the declaratory decree cannot be made. 27. Thus, the position of law can be summarized in the manner th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14.1.1970 passed by the competent Court, in such a decree it was not necessary to pray for consequential relief as it was implied in terms of the decree as both parties were entitled to perform seva puja as per the terms of the decree which they were doing for last number of years and therefore, to say that the present decree dtd. 14.1.1970 is not executable only because it was declaratory decree cannot be accepted. 34. It may further be stated here that simple declaratory decree passed by the competent Court and the declaratory decree passed by the competent court on the basis of compromise stand to some extent on different footing and in a compromise declaratory decree, consequential relief flows necessarily from the relief of declaration, therefore, from that point of view also, the decree in question dtd. 14.1.1970 was executable decree though in nature it might be a declaratory decree and hence the findings of the learned Executing court that the decree dtd. 14.1.1970 passed by the learned Dist. Judge, Merta was executable are liable to be confirmed one and the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners - judgment debtors that the decree dtd. 14.1.1970 passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|