Execution proceedings cannot reopen settled identity of decretal property or defeat enforcement of the decree.

A concluded finding on the identity and description of the decreed shop could not be reopened in execution proceedings. The tenants had already raised the site plan issue in the original ejectment case, where it was decided against them, and the tenant had admitted the site plan in evidence. The executing court was right in holding that it could not go behind the decree, while the High Court erred in treating the objection as fresh and in ignoring the earlier binding findings and the tenant's undertaking to vacate. The order directing restoration of possession to the tenants was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the executing court and the High Court were justified in reopening the identity and description of the decreed shop in execution proceedings and directing restoration of possession to the tenants.

Analysis: The issue of the site plan and identity of the shop had already been raised in the original ejectment proceedings and was decided against the tenants, with the tenant himself admitting the correctness of the site plan in evidence. The same issue was not successfully pursued in the appeal, revision, or special leave proceedings, and repeated attempts to revive it in execution amounted to an attempt to delay enforcement of the decree. The executing court was correct in holding that it could not go behind the decree. The High Court erred in treating the objection as if it were being raised for the first time and in ignoring the earlier binding findings and the tenant's undertaking to vacate.

Conclusion: The objection to identity of the property could not be reopened in execution, and the order directing restoration of possession to the tenants was unsustainable. The appeal succeeded in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A concluded finding on the identity of the decretal property cannot be reopened in execution proceedings, and a court executing the decree cannot go behind the decree or permit abuse of process to defeat its enforcement.

---