V.S. Sirpurkar, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the High Court in its Revisional Jurisdiction and issuing certain directions, appellants have come up before this Court. The appellants herein are the original plaintiffs and the legal representatives of one of the original plaintiffs. First three appellants are the original plaintiffs, while the other three are the legal representatives of one Abdul Salam Shora, who was the original plaintiff No. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 1 died on 28.11.2007. Vide order dated 25.3.2008, his legal representatives were brought on record. They filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents/defendants, whose defence was that the appellants/plaintiffs were encroaching upon the portion of land, which they alleged to have purchased and which is adjacent to the land in question. The location, identification and plaintiffs title and possession over the suit land was not controverted by the respondents/defendants in their written statement. Two issues came to be framed and subsequently two additional issues also came to be framed and ultimately, the suit was decreed, after about 14 years of its filing by the Court of Sub-Judge, Srinagar. Admittedly, this judgment had become final, since no appeal was filed against this judgment. However, since the respondents/defendants did not obey the terms of the decree and did not allow the appellants/plaintiffs to fence the land, which was in their possession and which was identifiable and sufficiently delineated in the suit, Execution Application was filed in March, 1987 for issuing directions to the respondents/defendants to comply with the terms of decree dated 18.10.1984. An objection came to be raised by the Judgment-Debtors before the Executing Court that the decree was un-executable, since the identity of the land in respect of which the decree was passed, was itself not established. This objection was upheld by the Executing Court by its order dated 21.6.1988. Against this order, a Revision Petition was filed by the appellants herein before the High Court vide Revision No. 153 of 1988. The Revision stood allowed by the High Court by its judgment dated 25.8.1998, whereby, the order of the Executing Court was set aside and the Executing Court was directed to proceed with the execution of the decree. The High Court had observed in the judgment that the Executing Court had not taken any steps to identify the suit land, though the factors like extent and limits of the suit land were available. The extent of the suit land was 1 canal 12 marlas, which was clearly given in Khewat and Khasra Numbers, while its location was given as Brari Nambal. It was found that no attempt was made by the Executing Court to look out for situational and other identifiable features and locale of the land even from the suit file, Revenue records including Aksilatha. Therefore, it was recommended that a Commissioner should be appointed for local investigation and if required, the oral evidence also could be taken. The High Court further observed that even the site plan coupled with the permission of Srinagar Municipality to raise the wall accorded to the decree holders for fencing or walling of the suit land, was not taken into consideration and it appeared that the Executing Court had gone by whatever had been raised and stated by the Judgment-Debtors alone, without arriving at an independent decision regarding executability of the decree, in totality of facts and circumstances of the case. It was also observed by the High Court that a decree cannot be defeated by reason of technical or hyper-technical objection and those unconnected with the realities on the ground level.
(3.) After this decision, the respondents/defendants filed an Application-cum-Reply/Statement, in which it was stated that the appellants/plaintiffs had grabbed the land of the respondents/defendants and under the garb of the decree, they were trying to grab the land of the respondents/defendants, adjacent to the suit land, which land was required to be protected by the Court. It was, therefore, prayed that the Revenue Authorities should be directed to demarcate the land, so that the decree-holders are not able to grab the land belonging to the respondents/defendants.;