The executing Court cannot exceed the scope of the decrees passed by the lower courts and must ensure that possession is delivered strictly in accordance with the judgment and decree.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Present civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 1.11.2010, rendered by learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.-II) Kangra, HP, in Execution petition No. 3 of 2009, whereby she has ordered for issuance of warrant of possession in favour of Decree Holders (respondents No. 1 to 4) qua field No. 598/54 to the extent of an area 0-01-08 hectares comprised in field No. 398 in this regard. Learned Executing Court also directed Patwari Halqua and field Kanungo to visit the spot and assist in the execution of the warrant of possession.

2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record necessary for adjudication of the case are that late Smt. Piyangla Devi (since deceased) through LRS (present respondents No. 1 to 4) filed a suit of declaration against the present petitioner and proforma respondent in the year 1989 before the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class (2), Kangra, HP., which was decreed by learned Sub Judge vide order 8.4.1996. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree dated 8.4.1996, proforma respondent namely Sita Ram, filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP, who vide judgment and decree dated 6.6.1997 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs ( respondents No. 1 to 4) qua proforma respondent. Record further reveals that, against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, present respondents No. 1 to 4 preferred Regular Second Appeal bearing No. 215 of 1997 before this Court, which was ultimately dismissed vide judgment dated 30.5.2008. Careful perusal of the record made available to this Court further suggests that on the strength of judgment and decree dated 8th April, 1996, passed by the learned trial Court, respondents No. 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) preferred an execution, praying therein for correction of revenue entries to the effect that possession qua one half share of the land in khasra No. 398 in favour of proforma respondent and half share of khasra No. 598/54 to the extent of 0-01-08. Respondents No. 1 to 4 in the execution preferred by them prayed for following relief:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the warrant for the delivery of symbolic possession qua khasra number 598/54 to the extent of an area measuring 0-01-08 hectares to the decree holders and to defendant No. 2 qua ½ share of khasra No. 398 area measuring 0-02-85 hects may be issued and the correction be ordered to be made in the revenue record.”

3. Since this Court before deciding the controversy at hand, had occasion to peruse the entire record of the executing Court, perusal whereof suggests that present petitioner filed reply to the application specifically denying the claim of respondents No. 1 and 4 but learned trail Court ignoring the submissions having been made on behalf of the present petitioner ordered to issue warrant of possession qua field No. 598/54 to the extent of area 0-01-08 hectares in favour of respondents No. 1 and 4 to the extent of area measuring 0-01-08 hectares and JD No. 2 (proforma respondent herein). It would be apt to reproduce the relevant para of the order passed by the learned executing Court.

“Let warrant of possession be issued in favour of the DHs qua field No. 598/54 to the extent of an area 0-01-08 hects to JD No.2 to the extent of an area measuring 0-02-85 hects comprised in field No. 398. The Patwari Halqua and field Kanungo are directed to visit the spot and assist in the execution of the warrant of possession. The Bailiff of the court is also directed to visit the spot and assist in the execution of the order. The requisite steps be taken and then warrant of possession be issued accordingly.”

4. Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Ms. Megha Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner, vehemently argued that bare perusal of the impugned order suggests that learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.-II) Kangra has exceeded its juri