JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Delhi in RCA NO. 238/1983, which appear arose from and the judgment and order dated 18th March, 1983 of Sub Judge, Delhi, whereby the Court accepted the objections of the Judgment-debtor and dismissed the execution petition on the finding that it had been fully satisfied.
-2- RSA 133/1985 2. The brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional District Judge are as follows :
” The appellant obtained a decree for injunction on 3.3.76 against the respondent from the court of Shri J.M. Malik, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, whereby the respondent was restrained from using the power connecting and from running of floor ginding machine in the property No. 796, Main Bazar, Chiragh Delhi, New Delhi. A decree for mandatory injunction was also issued by the same judgment directing the respondent to entrust back the same to the appellant. An appeal against the decree was dismissed by the court of Shri O.P. Singla, Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Delhi by a judgment dated 25.7.76. The appellant in the meantime had also obtained a decree from the court of Shri J.K. Pali on 15.2.77 for a sum of Rs.1, 755/- including costs towards damages for the period of 1.3.73 to 31.3.74. Shri O.P. Singla, by his judgment dated 25.7.78 dismissed not only the appeal arising form the judgment dated 3.3.76 but also that which arose from the judgment dated 15.2.77. The appellant filed an executing petition on 17th August, 1978 seeking execution of the decree dated 3.3.76. The execution was sought by taking back the disputed Atta Chakhi machine by sending the Judgment-debtor to civil prison and also by getting his property attached. Warrants were issued for entrusting the Atta Chakhi back to the Decree-holder/appellant. It was reported on 17.12.79 that the Atta Chakhi has been delivered back to the Decree-holder. The execution seeking contempt proceedings against the Judgment-debtor/respondent was filed. Before the report of delivery on 16.2.79, the Decree-Holder/appellant prayed for warrants
-3- RSA 133/1985
for attachment for a sum of Rs. 5,230/-. The judgment-debtor objected to this application. However, by an order dated 4.7.81, the executing court then presided over by Shri Ghansham Gupta, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi held that the Decree-holder had placed on record an order in appeal showing that the Judgment-debtor was bound to pay Rs.100/- p.m. for the user of the Chakhi and this amount should be paid w.e.f. 1.2.74. The ld. executing court, therefore, ordered issue for warrants for attachment. The Decree-holder subsequently moved another application for review on which instead of Rs.100/- p.m., the ld. Executing court ordered for recovery of Rs.135/- p.m. The judgment-debtor had filed an application U/s 47 of the Civil Procedure Code which remained on the file without disposal. On 27.8.82 Shri Ghan Sham Gupta directed the parties to appear before the ld. Distt. Judge as he did not want to try the matter for personal reasons. The execution case was, thereafter transferred to the court of Shri. K.S. Khurana and was disposed of by his successor-in-office Shri G.P. Mittal, Sub Judge IInd Class, Delhi. The Judgment-debtor in the meantime moved another application u/s 47 read with Sec. 151 CPC contending that no further proceedings should go on in the execution case since the decree stood satisfied. Shri. G.P. Mittal, after considering the entire facts, allowed the application of the Judgment-debtor and dismissed the execution application.:
-4- RSA 133/1985
3. The Appellate Court noted that there were certain irregularities inasmuch as the decree sought to be executed was a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction regarding the user of Atta Chakhi, power connection and for entrustment of the machine back to the Decree-holder. The Decree-holder merely prayed for entrusting back the Atta Chakhi. In the execution application, the Decree-holder prayed for the exeuction of the permanent and mandatory injunction. There was no question of recovery of any amount towards damages. As soon as the possession of the Atta Chakhi itself was entrusted back to the Decree-holder, there could be no further occasion for violating the decree for permanent injunction which restrained the respondent/Judgment-debtor from using the chakhi or from using the power connection for the chakhi. Therefore, the entire decree stood satisfied on the delivery of the Chakhi back to the Decree-holder. The Appellate Court declined that part of the order where a sum of Rs. 5,230/- for unauthorised use of the Chakhi and a sum of Rs. 100/- per months was ordered by the executing court.
-5- RSA 133/1985 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears for the respondent.
5. From the perusal of judgment under challenge, it appears that nowhere in the decree an amount of Rs. 5230/- or sum of Rs.100/- per month directed to be paid or a sum of Rs.135/- per month directed to be recovered. That being the state, I find no infirmity in the reasoning of the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Delhi. RSA 133/1985 is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.