The executing court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree and must give effect to the decree as passed, and a decree, even if erroneous, is binding between the parties until set aside by an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 07.04.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar vide which the objections filed by respondent no.l have been accepted and the application filed by the petitioner/decree-holder for providing police help for enforcing the decree dated 24.08.2002 has been dismissed. Also under challenge is the order dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure P-6) whereby the appeal of the petitioner/decree-holder against the order dated 07.04.2018 has been dismissed as being not maintainable.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present Us are that the petitioner claiming of being owner in possession of Plot Nos.7 and 8 situated in Village Kingra, Friends Cooperative Housing Society (Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Enclave), Jalandhar on the basis of sale deed dated 02.02.2000, filed a suit for permanentinjunction for restraining the respondent no.l herein from interfering in possession of the petitioner over land measuring 2 Kanals 13 Marias and 12 sq ft i.e Plot Nos.7 and 8 comprised in Khasra No.203 to 209, 447/201, 449/211 situated in the revenue estate of village Boot and Khasra No. 1892/2 situated in the revenue estate of village Kingra, Tehsil and Distt Jalandhar as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1995-96 precisely situated in village Kingra Friends Co. Op Housing Building Society Ltd. Jalandhar and bounded as under :

North : Road 30 ft

South : Road 271/2 ft

East: Punsup Gas Godown

West: Plot Nos.6 and 9

3. Vide judgement and decree dated 24.08.2002 the said suit for permanent injunction was decreed restraining respondent no. 1 from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the suit land except otherwise than in due course of law. Respondent no.l challenged the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2002 by way of appeal which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2003. Respondent no.l filed RSA No.2455 of 2003 in this Court against the judgements and decrees passed by both the Courts decreeing the suit of the petitioner.

4. Meanwhile, one Balwant Singh Goraya through respondent no.l herein acting as his attorney, had also filed a suit for specific performance/declaration/mandatory injunction and alternative relief of recovery averring that the defendants therein had executed an agreement dated 10.03.1994 agreeing to sell their land measuring 2 Kanals and 13 Marias and 12 sq ft. comprising Plot Nos.7 and 8 to the said plaintiff i.e. Balwant Singh Goraya andthe total sale consideration was was Rs.30,00,000/- out of which the defendants therein had received a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as earnest money and the balance amount was to be paid by 24.09.1994 which was the target date for execution and registration of the sale deed. This suit was contested by the defendants therein and was dismissed on 01.12.2000, inter-alia, on the ground that there was interpolation in the agreement to sell. The appeal by Balwant Singh Goraya through respondent no.1 herein acting as his attorney against the said judgment and decree dated 01.12.2000 was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide judgement and decree dated 02.07.2014. Balwant Singh Goraya through respondent no.l herein acting as his attorney filed RSA No.4967 of 2014 in this Court against the dismissal of his suit by both the Courts.

5. This Court vide a common judgment dated 01.11.2017 dismissed both the regular second appeals i.e. RSA No.2455 of 2003 filed by respondent no. 1 against the judgements and decrees passed by both the Courts decreeing the suit of the petitioner and RSA No.4967 of 2014 filed by Balwant Singh Goraya through respondent no.l herein acting as his attorney against the dismissal of his suit by both the Courts.

6. Against the judgement dated 01.11.2017 passed by this Court, two Special Leave Petitions were preferred before the Supreme Court - SLP No.37334 of 2017 was preferred by respon