https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187821 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. en-us Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Nov 2016 12:25:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187821 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187821