Mohammad Parvez Akhtar vs Union Of India And Others on 31 August, 2009
10. Even otherwise, it is basic fundamental principle in
execution proceedings that the executing court cannot go behind the
decree and neither can review nor modify the original decree. Even,
under Section 16 of the Act, the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in order
passed by Competent Officer or errors arising therein from any accidental
slip or omission, may, at any time, be corrected by the Competent
Officer. But the Competent Officer had no power to review or modify his
own judgment of date 19.11.2011 in terms of the impugned order as "As
per order dated 19.11.2011, 2 Bighas 10 Biswas was required to be given
back to custodian by Mohd. Akhtar/assignee as it was found to be in
MCA60209/2016
Chelmsford Club Ltd. Vs. Smt. Suman Jain & Ors. Page 15 of 17
excessive possession of claimant/assignee but now as 3 Bighas 1
Biswas is not shown to be in their possession, hence that part becomes
redundant and now it is upon custodian to agitate their matter
regarding this land with Gurdeep Singh and Chamsford Club and not
with Mohd. Akhtar. Mohd. Akhtar/assignee are entitled for remaining
11 biswas and custodian will give the same to them as alternative within
2 months from today." The Executing Court exceeded its jurisdiction as
afore elicited by modifying the judgment dated 19.11.2011 adversely
affecting rights of revisionist without issuing any notice to revisionist not
adhering to the principle of natural justice of audi alteram partem and
passed the impugned order at the back of the revisionist, condemning it
unheard, who had to suffer by virtue of impugned order as its
lands/properties owned as per registered sale/conveyance deed dated
06.07.1962, mutated in revenue records in its name, were adversely
affected. Accordingly on all the aforesaid premises the impugned order is
held to be bad in law and cannot sustain. The impugned order dated
21.02.2012 is set aside. Since, the original judgment dated 19.11.2011 in
Case No. 01/2011, titled "Mohd. Akhtar Vs. Union of India & Anr." has
been set aside as aforesaid in RCA60933/2016, titled "Chelmsford Club
MCA60209/2016
Chelmsford Club Ltd. Vs. Smt. Suman Jain & Ors. Page 16 of 17
Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Akhtar & Ors." vide judgment of this Court of date
08.11.2016, there is no need for remand of this matter back to the
executing Court of Competent Officer.