The court cannot rewrite the decree by converting a window into a door, on the ground that it existed before. In that case this additional access had to be provided in the decree. Neither can the court effect execution of a decree by trenching upon the applicant’s property which was not the property specifically decreed to be delivered to the plaintiff.

I.P. Mukerji, J.

There is a building numbered as 9, Ezra Street, Kolkata-700 01. The owner leased out the ground floor to two lessees. The lease was granted by two separate deeds of lease, but the demised premises was not separated. The two lessees held them jointly. One of the lessees was Kamini Kapoor, the plaintiff.

2. By two separate sub leases each of the lessees underlet the undivided demised portion to Punjab National Bank, the judgment debtor.

3. I now come to the facts of the case in detail. At one point of time, premises No. 9, Ezra Street, Kolkata-1 was owned by Smt. Chandramukhi Devi Poddar, Devashish Poddar, Anupam Poddar and Seth Laxman Prasad Urmila Poddar Girl’s Foundation Charitable Trust. By four several registered Deeds of Lease all dated 14th November, 1983, the owners demised 638.71 sq. ft. of this premises to Prakash Narayan Kapoor 865.89 sq.ft. to Kamini Kapoor, 701.08 sq. ft. to Damodar Nandlal Chawla and 958.20 sq. ft. to Kavita Chawla. The total demised area was 3163.88 sq. ft. Although each of the lease deeds mentioned the area of the property demised, there was no division or demarcation of it into four separate units. The entire demised land, on 1st February, 1984 was sub-leased to New Bank of India which subsequently became Punjab National Bank. Each of the lessees granted a sub-lease of his or her interest in the parent lease in favour of New Bank of India, subsequently the judgment debtor bank. Kamini and Prakash executed the sub-lease in respect of 1504.60 sq.ft. area. On 13th January, 2008 Kavita Vyapaar Private Limited purchased the residuary interest of the owners or lessors of the property. They say that after 13th November, 2002 the lessees were not paying any rent or occupation charges to the owners. According to Kavita Vyapaar Private Limited, the applicant in this court (G.A. 3335 of 2014), referred to later the four head leases expired on 13th November, 2002 and that the lessees whose leases had expired were wrongfully realizing rent from the bank. The plaintiff, Kamini Kapoor filed a present suit (C.S. 39 of 2012) against the judgement debtor bank claiming possession of the 1504.40 sq.ft. demised area on the ground floor of said premises and for mesne profit. On 23rd April, 2013 the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff put the decree to execution by filing on application (E.C. No. 292 of 2013). At the first stage of that application, this court on 23rd July, 2013 appointed a Special officer to take symbolic possession of the suit premises. Such possession was apparently taken. In the execution application, the plaintiff did not want plain and simple execution but also wanted something neither pleaded in the plaint nor obtained by her in the decree. It seems that she wanted to convert the undemarcated demised premises into a demarcated one with an exclusive door for entrance.

5. Now, the two leaseholds of which sub leases were granted to the bank were undivided properties having access through a door. The plaintiff wanted a partition wall with another door in her portion for exclusive egress and ingress. She wanted to shut a window and erect that door in her portion of the premises contending that the door was always there and that the window was constructed when the judgement debtor bank was inducted. It is in those circumstances that owner Kavita Vyapaar private Limited rushed to this court by filing the application G.A. 3335 of 2014 on or about 27th October, 2014 to say inter alia that their rights were being encroached upon. On 30th October, 2014 this court passed an order in the execution application asking the Special officer, appointed earlier to demarcate 1504.40 sq.ft. area and handover the same to the plaintiff decree holder. On 5th November, 2014 the Special officer visited the premises, demarcated the said area and handed it over to the plaintiff. But he noted that there was only one entrance to the two leaseholds outside the demarcated area. A