Executing Court would undoubtedly therefore have to execute the decree in terms of the decree that has been passed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner i.e. the Judgment Debtor No.2(B) would reiterate the case of the Petitioner and would contend that in view of the fact that the boundaries of the said 28 Are which is the area covered by the decree having not been mentioned the decree is unexecutable. The learned counsel sought to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 SCC 643 in the matter of Pratibha Singh Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad. The Apex Court had expounded the action that the Executing Court would have to take in the event that there is no proper identification of the property, as the Apex Court was of the view that ultimately the endeavour is to see it that the fruits of the decree are enjoyed by the Decree Holder. In the said case before the Apex Court, the property in question which was the subject matter of the decree for specific performance was not properly identified in the Revenue Record. It is in the said fact situation that the Apex Court observed that a recourse could be had to Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Such is not the case in the instant matter as the boundaries of the larger area i.e. 38 Ares is already identified in the Plaint and it would be therefore for the Executing Court to execute the decree in so far as 28 Ares land is concerned. However, the execution of the decree cannot be stalled on the ground that the boundaries of the said 28
