Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.8.2010, Annexure P6, passed by learned Executing Court.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Executing Court.

3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff against present petitioner-defendant and pro forma respondent no.2 restraining them from dispossessing forcibly or illegally and from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute, fully described in para no.1 of the plaint. Suit was contested by present petitioner-defendant and respondent no.2. However, the same was decreed against present petitioner and against respondent -defendant no.2 and they were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute.

4. Appeal filed against the judgment was also dismissed and hence the judgment has become final. Execution petition was filed by decree-holder under Order 21 Rule 11 and order 21 Rule 32 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Code’), in which objections were filed by the present judgment-debtors, which were dismissed by learned Executing Court on 8.8.2006. Warrant of possession was issued by learned Executing Court on 6.10.2007, however, the same was received with the report that there were shops on northern side of the property abutting the Kunjpura Road. Decree-holder had taken the plea that judgment-debtors constructed these shops subsequent to the decision of this case as there is no reference of the shops in the judgment and decree passed against the present judgment-debtors. Order dated 7.12.2007 was passed by learned Executing Court, which was challenged by decree-holder before this Court and this Court remanded the matter to Executing Court to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.

5. Hence, specific issues were framed by learned Executing Court and after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties, it was held that the shops adjoining Kunjpura road were constructed by judgmentdebtors after decision of the suit and hence warrant of possession of property in dispute shown in site plan Ex.P1, as per decree dated 22.4.2003 was issued returnable for 1.9.2010 vide impugned order by observing as under:-

“18. The Court can restore the possession during the execution of the decree under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. On this point, I rely upon Inder Singh and others v. Dharma and others, 2003(3) CCC 363 (P&H). In this case warrants of possession is to be executed on the basis of boundary displayed in the decree 17x56 feet as mentioned in the para no.1 of the plaint and discussed in the decree sheet dated 22.4.2003. Therefore, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the DH and she is entitled to entire area as given in para no.1 of the plaint.”

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in a decree for permanent injunction, relief of possession cannot be granted by Executing Court as Execution Court cannot go beyond the decree and that it is beyond scope of Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code. On the point he has placed reliance upon Full Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Sarup Singh v. Daryodhan Singh, AIR 1972 Delhi 142.

7. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that judgment-debtors cannot be permitted to take the law into their own hands and if judgment-debtors after passing of decree violated the same by dispossessing the decree-holder, Courts are having full power to give effective relief to decree-holder by restoring the possession. It has also been contended that by way of amendment, an explanation has been added in O