D. L. MEHTA, J. - (1.) LAW should be applied for the justice and justice cannot be made the hand maid of law. Provisions of Order-21 particularly relating to the mode of execution provided in order-21 should be interpreted in such a way that the decree becomes executable and technicalities of interpretation do not come in the way. The need of the time is that the Court should instead of giving more attention and hearing more voices coming from the graves should hear and give more attention to the voices coming from the living persons. It is also necessary for a Judge to innovate, renovate and change the rule within the promises of the law. I should not be misunderstood when I say about change of the Rule and for that purpose, I must emphasize the word 'within the premises of law' used by me, as the Judge cannot go beyond the law, he can change the interpretation of law, he can change the application of law, but he cannot change the law.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the impugned order dated 24. 4. 89 passed by the learned Munsiff Magistrate. There was a litigation between the parties and, in the said litigation, consent decree was passed on 31. 8. 88, which reads as under :- ************ It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice was issued by the non-petitioners on 30. 9. 88 on one Shambhu Nath. There is a report of the Process Server that Shambhu Nath refused to accept the notice. The name of Shambhu Nath is not shown in the notice. There is a possibility that Shambhu Nath who is the father of Pyar Mohan is dead and there is a possibility that the process server might have approached any other Shambhu Nath, who has nothing to do with the case or the dispute. I will not like to decide this point as I am leaving it for the trial court to pass necessary orders accordingly. 3. Mr. Alok Sharma with all the vehemence at his command submitted that Clause-5 of Rule 32 of Order 21 C. P. C. does not apply. He submits that the decree passed is a declaratory decree. In the alternative, he submits that even if it is assumed that it is a prohibitory injunction, even then clause (5) of Rule-32 of Order 21 does not apply. Mr. Sharma submits that Clause only aplies in the case of mandatory injunction. He submits that the petitioner is at liberty to proceed under Clause-1 of Rule 32 and the proceedings under clause (1) are already pending before the trial Court. Mr. Sharma has cited before me the case of Sewa Ram V. Devi Lal. This Court has held as under:- Sub-rule (5)-'of r. 32 of O. XXI of the C. P. Code is confined in its application to decrees for mandatory injunctions only and has properly speaking no application whatever to decrees for prohibitory injunctions and it would not be open to the executing Court to convert a decree for prohibitory injunction into one for mandatory injunction, when asked to execute a decree of the former character. " On the other hand, Mr. Saxena submitted that Clause-5 can be applied even in the cases of prohibitory injunction. He further submits that this clause cannot be restricted only in the, matter of permanent injunction. I have heard rival contentions of both the parties. Modes of execution as provided in r. 32 are the modes which ordinarily be adopted for the purpose of the execution of the decree. Unless specifically prohibited or by implication prohibited, any other mode, which may be just and proper though not provided in any of the modes of Rule 32 may be adopted by the Court for the purpose of execution to meet the ends of justice. All Rules retating to the mode of execution provided under Order 21 from Rules 13 to 36 and thereafter, does not prohibit either directly or by implication, the adoption of any other mode which may be necessary, just and proper to meet the ends of justice. As such, I am of the view that the Court has a power to adopt any mode, even though, not provided specifically in any of the Rules to meet the ends of justice and to see that the decree passed by the Court is properly executed and duly respected. As far as this case is concerned, I will not like to enter into any controversy. I have already given a broad interpretation of Order-21, particularly relating to the modes of execution. Trial Court is directed to proceed according to law which may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. If any mistake is committed by the respondents in the mode of execution of the decree, court has a power to rectify the mistake and to do any act which may be necessary in the interest of justice and to see that the decree is executed and obeyed.
(3.) WITH these observations the order of the trial court is set aside. The case is sent back to the court below for passing necessary orders according to law. No. order as to costs. .;