Point of Law : Court cannot go beyond the decree and has to execute the decree as it is and the legality or validity of the decree cannot be the subject matter

JUDGMENT :

1. The Ex.F.A.13/2019 & Ex.F.A.30/2019 are being taken up together, in as much as, the issue involved in both the Execution First Appeals relates to the contention raised on behalf of the appellant herein that an inaccurate site plan had been filed by the respondent Ajay Bhatia herein in CS(OS) No.1828/2006 against the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited arrayed as the present appellant as also against the Union of India vide which suit the plaintiff thereof arrayed as the sole respondent to EX.F.A.13/2019 and arrayed as the respondent no.1 to EX.F.A.30/2019 with defendant no.2 to the said suit Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi being arrayed as the respondent no.2 to EX.F.A.30/2019, had filed a suit for recovery of possession of land and mesne profits with the following prayers:-

“a) a decree for recovery of possession in respect of plot measuring 9,700. sq.ft. situated at 4/4 Azadpur, G.T. Road, Delhi as shown in red in the plan may be passed in favour of the Appellant and against the defendants as shown red in the plan attached.

b) the decree for recovery of Rs. 1965000/- being the damages @ Rs. 50000 per month from July 2003 to June 2006 be also passed in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendants.

c) A decree for recovery of future mesne profits @Rs.50000/- per mensum from the institution of the suit till the realization be also passed. d) The suit be decreed with costs.”,

Whereas, the EX.F.A.13/2019 relates to the prayer made by the appellant seeking the setting aside of the order dated 15.03.2019 of the Court of the learned ADJ, District Court, Rohini in Execution Petition No.290/2017 in which the application dated 29.09.2017 filed by the DH i.e. the respondent to EX.F.A.13/2019 under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC seeking the possession of the entire land in dispute was allowed qua which the judgment dated 21.11.2013 passed by this Court for possession of 9700 Sq. Ft. of property situated at 4/4, Azad Pur, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi as per the site plan filed with the plaint, which judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.02.2014 in RFA(OS) 36/2014 and of which there had been a part execution of the decree by the bailiff vide proceedings dated 15.09.2014 whereby possession of 7075 sq. yards had been taken from the JD by the bailiff and the objections that had been filed by the JD i.e. the appellant herein seeking the correction of the site plan vide which the decree sought to be executed were held to be sham and were dismissed for the remaining portion of land.

2. Vide the impugned order dated 15.03.2019, the prayer made by the JD i.e. the appellant herein vide an application dated 18.09.2014 for restoration of possession taken in part execution of decree was also dismissed and the JD i.e. the appellant herein was directed to remove the entire plant and machinery including underground tanks, petrol and diesel etc. from the suit property within a period of four weeks from the date 15.03.2019 qua which the execution proceedings were stayed vide order dated 11.04.2019 in EX.F.A.13/2019. Vide the said impugned order dated 15.03.2019, the prayer made by the Judgment Debtor, the appellant vide an application dated 22.08.2014 under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC seeking dismissal of the execution petition as being not executable,- was also dismissed.

3. Vide the order impugned order dated 19.07.2019 in Execution Petition No.212/2019 as challenged in Ex.F.A.30/2019, the objections filed by the JD i.e. the present appellant as well as the application under Order XXI Rule 26 were both dismissed. EX.F.A.30/2019 relates to the impugned order dated 19.07.2019 of the learned ADJ-02, North West, Rohini, Delhi which relates to prayer made by the DH seeking execution of delivery of mesne profits qua the suit property i.e. 4/4, Azad Pur, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi which is the same property qua which suit bearing CS(OS)1828/2006 was filed by the plaintiff herein i