JUDGMENT
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.
1. Facts leading to the filing of this revision are that petitioner Mahaveer Singh alleged that he had purchased a p!ot of land from Smt. Laxmi daughter of Kaluram under a ‘patta’ dated August 22, 1917. The area of the land was 825 Sq. Yds. It was stated that out, of this land 375 Sq Yds of land was used for construction on the Bikaner-Suratgarh main road without following, the procedure provided for acquisition in the Land Acquisition Act. The Municipal Board was alleged to have moved the State Government and the latter directed the Municipal Board, Suratgarh to give land to the petitioner Mahaveer Singh near Government hospital. Accordingly 3 sale deed dated November 27;, 1978 was executed by the, run-petitioner Municipal Board, Suratgarh. Mahaveer Singh, petitioner filed a civil suit against the Municipal Board, Suratgarh which was decreed on July 15, 1980;. By this decree Mahaveer Singh was declared to be the owner of the suit plot and it was decreed that the Municipal Board, Suratgarh shall deliver possession of the plot after indicating it. A previous execution No. 11 of 1980 was filed. It maybe mentioned that one Chelaram filed a suit and a decree was passed in that suit to the effect that Chelaram may not be dispossessed from some piece of land-
2. This revision has arisen out of a second execution application No. 14 of 1985 filed by Mahaveer Singh. In this execution application, Mahaveer Singh had prayed that he delivered possession of land measuring 60′ x 25,’ situated in Ward No. 6, Suratgarh in the north of the Government Hospital and adjacent to the western side to the Bikaner Suratgarh road. On July I, 1985, Chelaram had filed an application that delivery of possession may be made to Mahaveer Singh after leaving the land of Chelaram in respect of which the latter had obtained a decree. The Municipal Board, Suratgarh filed objections on July 25, stating that the decree was vague and it was not clear as to of what land the possession had to be delivered to Mahaveer Singh under the decree. The Civil Judge, Hanumangarh came to the conclusion that the decree did not contain sufficient description of the land of which possession had to be delivered to Mahaveer Singh. He also stated that apart from that Chelaram had also obtained a decree for permanent injunction and, therefore, the decree was not capable of execution until the petitioner got it amended and got the description of the land specified in the decree.
3. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner raised a preliminary objection that there has been no illegal and irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the executing court and therefore, this Court should not interfere in revision. He has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision in the case of Harakchand v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1970 RLW 320. In my view, the facts in Harakchand’s case were quite different and have no application what so ever to the present case. The law is very well settled. It is no doubt true that the court cannot go beyond the decree but where there is ambiguity in terms of the decree, the court is bound to interpret it to its plain meaning and it cannot ignore its terms and assude mistake on the part of the parties. Where there is any ambiguity in the decree, the executing court should construe the decree in order to ascertain its precise meaning and for this purpose, it may refer to the judgment and pleadings in the case. All that the execution court cannot do is that under the guise of interpretation, it cannot make a new decree for the parties. It is important to note that the Municipal Board, Suratgarh had itself by a sale-deed dated November 27, 1978, sold the plot to the petitioner. The petitioner in his execution application had given description of the plot as measuring 25’x 60′ measuring in all, 1500 sq.ft. The southern boundary of the plot was given as road and then the Government hospital and the eastern boundary was given as the Municipal land. The executing court was much influenced by the fact that Chelaram had filed a suit and had obtained a decree for permanent injunction from being dispossessed from same land.It is important to note that while the petitioner claimed possession over 15 sq.ft. Chelaram’s decree only related to land measuring 12-1/2′ x 20′ and it could not cover the entire land with respect to which the petitioner had obtained the decree. The executing court has ignored that the decree could only be amended if there was a clerical error of accidental slip. It was a case of construction of the decree for the purpose of removing the ambiguity and for this purpose, the executing court should have referred to the pleadings of the parties and the judgment which it has not at all done. If after the warrant of possession had been issued and the Nazir had gone to deliver possession, then option was available to Chela Ram to file objections under Order XXI, Rule 58, CPC and option was also available to the petitioned decree-holder to complain of any obstruction which Chela Ram might have placed. In such event, the executing court could decide the claim or justification of obstruction, as the case may be, of Chela Ram. For the present, it was the legal duty of the court to execute the decree and if it felt that there was ambiguity in the decree, it should have construed the decree in order to ascertain its precise remaining and, for this limited purpose, it should have investigated the matter in accordance with law. The order of Civil Judge, Hanumangarh is erroneous and he has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law.
4. I, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the Civil Judge, Hanumangarh dated September 20, 1986 and remand the case to him with the directions that he should construe the decree and ascertain its precise meaning and in doing so, it should act according to the powers vested in an executing court for the purpose of constitution of decree by law. The parties present here are informed, through their counsels, to appear in the court of Civil Judge, Hanumangarh on March 16, 1987.