Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri K.K. Arora, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the respondents is not present. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged.
(2.) BY means of impugned order the executing Court has held that since the decree stood executed/satisfied in view of Dakhalnama executed by the Court Amin, the petitioner could not maintain the execution application inasmuch as the decree having been satisfied the execution application could not be executed a second time for any subsequent cause of action. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the fact was that on 31.1.2005 the Amin along with the petitioner executed Dakhalnama and obtained signature of the brother of the tenant. According to the petitioner, on the night of 31.5.2005 and 1.6.2005 the respondent tenant forcibly entered the premises in question again. The application for execution was therefore pressed by the petitioner and the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of the Court by means of an application. The Court illegally took the view that since the decree has been executed by the Court Amin therefore a subsequent application for execution was not maintainable. He submits that while rejecting the aforesaid application the executing Court has illegally concluded that since the decree stood satisfied, the execution application for a subsequent violation of the decree could not be maintainable and the aggrieved party could avail his remedy in accordance with law.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the fact was brought to the notice of the Court that the decree has been executed on 31.5.2005 obtaining the signature of the brother of the tenant, however, the Dakhalnama executed by the Court Amin that possession has been taken by the petitioner was not finally accepted by the Court and no satisfaction of the decree was recorded by the Court, therefore, the petitioner moved an application with affidavit when in the night of 31.5.2005 and 1.6.2005 the respondent tenant forcibly entered the premises in question. It is only when the decree is satisfied and recorded by the Court and there is subsequent violation by the judgment debtor then the decree holder would have to avail his remedy in accordance with law and the execution could not continue after recording satisfaction of the decree.;