T. S. ISRANI, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil revision petition against the order dated 7. 11. 83 passed by the learned Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur city, court No. 2 in execution petition No. 82/83 filed by the non-petitioner.
(2.) THE non petitioner is an employee of the petitioner corporation. He was dismissed from service on account of a charge of misconduct. THE petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration against the charge of misconduct and removal from service, claiming that the order of dismissal was void in law. This suit after trial was decreed on 15 12. 81 in favour of the non petitioner. THEreupon the non-petitioner filed an execution application in the court of learned Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No 2, Jaipur city, Jaipur seeking recovery of money from the petitioner, calculating the amount of his emoluments payable to the non petitioner from the date of dismissal to the date of his reinstatement in the service as per orders of this court. THE petitioner raised objection against this execution petition on the ground that since the decree was purely of declaratory nature and no specific amount had been mentioned in the same, therefore, the non petitioner was not entitled to get this decree executed. THE learned trial court under the impugned order dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner and held that the decree of declaration was executable. Shri Ram Raj Lal Gupta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that since it was a decree only for declaration and no specific amount was claimed by the non petitioner such a decree cannot be executed by the executing court. It is therefore, contended that the impugned order may be set aside and it may be held that the decree for declaration cannot be executed. Mr. Anwar Ali Ahmed learned counsel appearing for the non petitioner contended that the suit was filed for declaration against the order of dismissal and the learned trial Court set aside the order of dismissal and declared that the non petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits. Therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the learned trial court. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the order under challenge. It is settled law that a decree for declaration is executable and the trial court has rightly dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner against the same. The non-petitioner was in service of the petitioner corporation and the suit was filed against the order of his dismissal, in which it was also prayed that after setting aside the order of dismissal he may also be given the consequential benefits from the date of order of dismissal till he reinstated. The trial court passed a declaratory decree, set aside the order of dismissal and held that the non petitioner was entitled to consequential benefits. In these circumstances, the executing court has rightly directed that the non petitioner be reinstated and may be paid the salary, subject to the deposition of court fees by the non petitioner. The decree cannot be said to be non executable, merely because it was declaratory in nature and no specific amount was mentioned therein regarding payment of the salary. In the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohan Lal reported in RLR 1985-866 same view was taken by this court. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. . ;