JUDGMENT
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 32 of 1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal is the petitioner in this revision.
2. Respondents filed the suit against the petitioner and four others, for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and consequential injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, which is a small extent of 38 sq. yards, situate in Survey No. 923/1 of Ieeja village and mandal. After contest by the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit through its Judgment dated 28.04.2004. The respondents filed E.P. No. 91 of 2004 for delivery of possession. Through order dated 30.06.2004, the executing Court issued warrant for delivery of possession of the EP schedule property.
3. The petitioner contends that the decree in O.S. No. 32 of 1998 does not contain any direction as to the delivery of possession and in that view of the matter, it was not competent for the executing Court to issue warrant for the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the executing Court cannot go beyond the terms of a decree and as long as there is no direction in the decree as to the delivery of possession, it was not competent for the executing Court to issue the warrant for delivery of possession. He submits that even if the omission to specify the relief as to delivery of possession in the decree is accidental, till the necessary steps are taken, the executing Court could not have enforced such a relief.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the trial Court specifically answered all the issues in the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and failure to mention the relief relating to delivery of possession in the decree was accidental. He submits that once it emerges that the trial Court decreed the suit in respect of delivery of possession also, no exception can be taken to the order under revision.
6. As observed earlier, the suit was filed for the reliefs of a) declaration of title; b) recovery of possession; and c) consequential injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial Court framed independent issues on each of these aspects being Issue Nos. 1 to 3. They read as under:
1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title as prayed for?
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession as prayed for from defendants 1 and 2?
3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
7. It has undertaken discussion on each and every issue with reference to the voluminous evidence that was placed before it, in the form of deposition of P.Ws. 1 to 4, D.W.1; Exs. A1 to A19 and Exs. B1 to B5. All the issues were answered in favour of the plaintiffs. However, while summing up the result of the discussion and findings on issues, in the penultimate paragraph of the Judgment, the trial Court omitted to refer to the relief of delivery of possession. The paragraph reads as under:
“In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs by declaring the plaintiffs right and title over the suit schedule A and B properties and the defendants 1 to 6 are restrained by way of perpetual injunction not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties.”
8. The decree was drawn on the basis of the above said paragraph and naturally the relief in relation to the delivery of possession did not find a place in it. The relevant paragraph in the decree is as under:
“That the suit of the plaintiffs be and the same is decreed with costs, by declaring the plaintiffs right and title over the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are restrained by way of perpetual injunction not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties.”
9. From the above, it is clear that the decree, as it stands now, does not contain any relief as regards delivery of possession. The relief granted in a Judgment has to be reflected in the decree. Then only, execution in relation to the relief can be secured. Whether the absence of such a relief in the decree was on account of any accidental omission or otherwise, the fact remains that the respondents were not entitled to seek any execution for delivery of possession on the strength of the decree. If at all, they were of the view that the trial Court granted the relief of delivery of possession and the decree did not conform to the Judgment, the only course open to them was to move an application under Section 152 read with Rule 6 of Order XX C.P.C. It is settled principle of law that the executing Court cannot go beyond the contents of a decree. One hardly needs any support of precedents for this. Suffice it to refer the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in T. Saraswathi Prasad Singh v. G.V. KKalavathy & others, (D.B.). It was held therein that unless the decree provides for delivery of possession, the execution petition for such a relief is not maintainable. On this ground alone, the order under revision is liable to be set aside. However, there is a wider dimension to the problem.
10. A decree in a suit or other proceedings will be drawn by the ministerial staff of the Court. Order XX C.P.C. prescribes the procedure in relation to the Judgments and decrees and mandates that a decree shall conform to the Judgment. Rule 6 of the same, in fact, starts with such a mandate. The Parliament recognized the difficulty of the ministerial staff in discerning the ultimate outcome of a Judgment for the purpose of drafting the decree and it imposed an obligation on the part of the Judge rendering the Judgment, to sum up his conclusions in the last paragraph of the Judgment. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6A of Order XX C.P.C., before it was amended through Act 46 of 1999, reads as under:
“The last paragraph of the Judgment shall state in precise terms the relief which has been granted by such Judgment.”
11. Having regard to the fact that what is executable is a decree and not a Judgment, and that the decrees are drawn by the ministerial staff, the requirement under Rule 6A(1) of Order XX C.P.C. not only assumed importance but also avoided mishaps in the process of preparation of decrees. It is rather shocking that such a useful and important provision was done away with, in the recent amendment effected to the Code of Civil Procedure. Through Section 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act), 1999, Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 6A was omitted. It was not as if the said provision caused any hindrance in the speedy disposal of the cases or added any complications to the procedure.
12. It is relevant to refer to the amendment carried out to Rule 1 of Order XLI C.P.C. by the same amendment Act. Through Section 31 of that Act, Rule 1 of Order XLI was amended to the effect that filing of a decree along with memorandum of appeal is not necessary. Enclosure of the Judgment to the memorandum of appeal is treated as sufficient compliance. After amendment, the relevant rule reads as under:
“Form of appeal—What to accompany memorandum-(1) Every appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or his pleader and presented to the Court or to such officer as it appoints in this behalf. The memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of the Judgment.”
13. Section 96 C.P.C. provides for an appeal against a decree and not Judgment. Preparation of a decree is mandatory. Rules 6 to 8 of Order XX prescribe the general procedure for preparation of decrees. Rules 9 to 19 stipulate the contents of decrees in different kinds of suits such as those for the relief of possession, recovery of money, specific performance of contract, dissolution of partnership, partition etc. It is debatable whether the Parliament could have amended order XLI C.P.C. providing for dispensing with filing of decree for the time being if it was not furnished by the Court urgently, or to do away with the necessity to file the decree at all. In the present scheme of the Code, the decree becomes irrelevant except for execution. This, however, is a different aspect. Even if it is to be assumed that this amendment was necessitated to relieve the parties from the hardship caused on account of the delay in preparation of the decrees, the Parliament was under obligation to ensure that the absence of a decree is taken care of by requiring that the result of adjudication is indicated in the operative portion of the Judgment. In fact, dispensing with the requirement of filing of a decree along with memorandum of appeal warranted steps in such a direction viz. that the last paragraph of the Judgment reflects the result of adjudication. The Parliament, however, has proceeded in the opposite direction. It has done away with Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 6A which ordained the precise statement of result in the last paragraph of the Judgment. There cannot be any justification either in law or logic for such a step. It is a case either of non-application of mind or accidental omission. If at all any proof is required for the miscarriage of justice on account of such un-warranted omission, the present case offers one. The learned Judge, who rendered the Judgment, appears to have felt relieved from the obligation to sum up the reliefs granted by him in the last paragraph of the Judgment, in view of the amendment to Rule 6A of Order XX C.P.C.
14. The requirement to sum up the reliefs granted in the Judgment is so vital that the Supreme Court emphasized the need in this regard in the recent Judgment rendered by it in Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan v. Hari Prasad Bhuyan, . The Hon’ble Supreme Court exhorted as under:
“It is for the Court, decreeing the suit, to examine the reliefs and then construct the operative part of the Judgment in such manner as to bring the reliefs granted in conformity with the findings arrived at on different issues and also the admitted facts. The trial Court merely observing in the operative part of the Judgment that the suit is decreed or an appellate Court disposing of an appeal against dismissal of suit observing the appeal is allowed and then staying short at that, without specifying the reliefs to which the successful party has been found entitled tantamounts to a failure on the part of the author of Judgment to discharge obligation cast on the Judge by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure.”
15. Elsewhere in the same Judgment, it was held that :
“The very obligation cast by the Code that the decree shall agree with the Judgment spells out an obligation on the part of the author of the Judgment to clearly indicate the relief or reliefs to which a party, in his opinion, has been found entitled to enable decree being framed in such a manner that it agrees with the Judgment and specifies clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit. The operative part of the Judgment should be so clear and precise that in the event of an objection being laid, it should not be difficult to find out by a bare reading of the Judgment and decree whether the latter agrees with the former and is in conformity therewith. A self-contained decree drawn up in conformity with the Judgment would exclude objections and complexities arising at the stage of execution.”
16. It is a coincidence that this Judgment was rendered after the amendment, and no reference is made to the amended provisions. Being the law of land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, this Judgment can take care of the vacuum created by the un-warranted amendment to Rule 6A of Order XX C.P.C. However, all the courts and the legal practitioners cannot be expected to be aware of this Judgment and mishaps are likely to occur, unless Rule 6A is restored to the pre-amendment status. This Court is conscious of its limitations in the matter of giving any directions to the legislatures to enact or amend any provisions of law. The effort is only to impress upon the concerned, to undo the damage which was unnecessarily caused to the procedural law.
17. In the statement of objects to Act 46 of 1999, reference is made to 129th Report of the Law Commission as well as to the recommendations of the Committee on subordinate legislations (11th Lok Sabha) relating to steps to “reduce the unnecessary adjournments”. A perusal of 129th Report of the Law Commission does not disclose that no reference is made to Order XX C.P.C. not to speak of any recommendation to amend Rule 6A thereof. So far as the recommendations of the Committee are concerned, it is too difficult to imagine that it has taken exception to the requirement under Rule 6A of Order XX CPC as it stood before amendment or that it considered the deletion of Sub-Rule (1) as a step towards “reduction of unnecessary adjournments”. Order XX much less Rule 6A relates to adjournments. Therefore, the amendment to Rule 6A appears to have been carried out inadvertently. This, however, is a matter which needs immediate attention of the Union Ministry of Law, so that the feasibility of restoration of the provision referred to above can be considered.
18. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that possession has already been delivered to the plaintiffs in pursuance of the order under revision. It is also submitted that an application under Section 152 C.P.C. is filed for correction of the decree to be in conformity with the Judgment. Having regard to these developments, this Court does not feel it appropriate to direct restoration of possession. Depending on the outcome of the application filed under Section 152 C.P.C., the petitioner can work out his remedies and the possession delivered through the order under revision shall be subject to the outcome of the same.
19. The civil revision petition is accordingly, disposed of with the observations made above.