Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Order 21, Rule 54 & Sec. 47–Attachment of machine in pursuance of the execution of decree–Decree is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from unauthorised use and disclosure of the design claimed by the decree-holder–Objection that the Executing Court at Gautam Budh Nagar lacked territorial jurisdiction to pass an order of attachment at the time of transfer of decree for exeuction relating to machine lying at Dholpur–Order passed by the Court at Gautam Budh Nagar was never challenged–Judgment debtor cannot be allowed to turn arround and question the validity of earlier order–The prohibitory decree is entirely silent on the specification and identifying features of the machine’s design sought to be protected not only in the decree, but also in the agreement, pleadings and execution petition–Once the decree lacks the requisite clarity and certainty for execution, it is inexecutable in law–Whether any subsequent agreement violates the earlier agreement is a matter requiring independent adjudication and cannot be presumed in execution proceedings–Execution Court exercised the jurisdiction not vested to it by law while maintaining the attachment of machine–Objection raised by judgment-debtor deserves to be allowed.
