has by the impugned order dated 17/12/2014 has allowed the said Chamber Summons and granted the reliefs which were sought vide prayer clauses (a) and (b) thereof. The contention raised on behalf of the Defendant that since the decree is a preliminary decree, it is unexecutable has been rejected by the Trial Court by observing that the decree itself spells out that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant would be entitled to ½ share each in the immovable property as well as in the rents, income and profits of the said property. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, as the impugned order discloses, adverted to the correspondence, letters, notices issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant to show that the Defendant is not ready to abide by the decree passed in the said Notice of Motion No.2069 of 2006. The objection as regards the decree being a preliminary decree has also been answered by the Trial Court against the Defendant by holding that in the present case the question of determining rights of the parties by metes and bounds does not arise, as in the decree passed in Notice of Motion it was directed to sell the suit property to the higher bidder. The Trial Court has distinguished the case laws cited before it wherein it was laid down by the Apex Court that unless a final decree is passed and it is engrossed on a stamp paper, the decree is not executable by holding that looking to the nature of the decree passed it could not be said that it is a preliminary decree. The Trial Court observed that the decree was executable right from the day when it was passed, and that the said decree is not necessary to be engrossed on the stamp paper as nothing is to be transferred in
