Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) A small matter which could have been sorted out at the trial Court level has unnecessarily been dragged through the corridors of several Courts. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court which has been disposed of under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the CPC). The respondent is an Agricultural Produce Market Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Market Committee"). The appellant had filed a suit seeking direction for renewal of the licence in his favour and allotment of the vacant site. The same was the subject-matter of dispute in OS No. 1015 of 1987 in the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. Decree passed in the said case reads as follows : "It is ordered and decreed that the defendant is directed to allot a vacant site in between site No. 10-C and 11/2 situtated at 2nd main of AMPC Yard to the plaintiff. It is further decreed that the defendant is directed to renew the licence in favour of the plaintiff to carry on business. It is further decreed that the defendant is further directed that if any building or maliges are constructed in vacant site in between sites 10-C and 11/2, the same shall be allotted to the plaintiff."
(3.) An application for execution was filed, and the Executing Court also took action against Market Committee for disobedience. The stand of the Market Committee before and/or subsequent to the decree, and in the execution proceedings was that the decree was not executable. It appears that the High Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to report about the physical position of the space between site Nos. 10/C and 11/2. The High Court after receipt of the Advocate Commissioners report and looking at the photographs found that the decree was not executable as in its view, it refers to a space not in existence on account of the drainage on the spot. Accordingly the Civil Revision was allowed.;