( 1 ) THE opponent filed a Darkhast for the possession of half the share of the property which he had purchased in the execution of a money decree. But subsequently he gave another application for the possession of the whole share in the property namely Survey No. 97 on the ground that he was entitled to possession of the other half also by reason of a private sale by the co-sharer. The learned Judge rejected the contention of the judgment-debtors and ordered that warrant for possession for whole of the disputed property Survey No. 97 should be issued. In revision this order is challenged.

( 2 ) IN my opinion the learned Judge below has acted beyond the jurisdiction vested in him. Under Order 21 Rule 97 and Rule 98 Civil Procedure Code the executing Court can order the delivery of possession of immoveable property in execution proceedings if the decree is for possession of the immoveable property or if the property had been purchased in execution of a decree. The order directing possession can only relate to such immoveable property that is immoveable property to which the decree relates or to immoveable property which had been purchased in execution of a decree. In t