JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. 

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.11.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal in Execution Petition No.315 of 2014 titled as Brij Lal Vs. Ravinder Singh, whereby order for warrant of possession of the suit property has been issued.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit for permanent injunction was filed by respondent-Brij Lal on 15.06.2012 (since deceased and now being represented by his LR) and it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has already constructed shop in the suit land. It is submitted that decree for injunction was passed on 20.10.2014 but prior to the passing of the said decree, construction of the shop had already been completed by the petitioner. It is argued that in the said circumstances, while filing an execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC, the respondent cannot seek possession or demolition of the shop which was already in existence prior to the passing of the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2014. It is submitted that the objections filed by the petitioner are meritorious and impugned order dismissing the said objections be set aside and the execution petition filed by the respondent be dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:-

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has argued that the trial Court vide judgment dated 20.10.2014, after taking into consideration all the pleas raised by the petitioner including the plea of there being a construction of shop raised by the petitioner, had decreed the suit of the respondent-Brij Lal and had specifically restrained the petitioner from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land by way of raising any construction or in any other manner until the suit property was partitioned by metes and bounds. It is submitted that it is not disputed that till date, the said suit property has not been partitioned by metes and bounds. It is further argued that the judgment of the trial Court was upheld by the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 31.05.2018 and no further appeal has been filed by the petitioner and thus, the same has attained finality. It is further argued that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and it is the duty of the Executing Court to implement the decree and thus, the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. It is not in dispute that the respondent-Brij Lal, now represented by his LR, had filed the suit for permanent injunction on 15.06.2012 and the said suit was decreed on 20.10.2014. A copy of the said judgment and decree has been annexed as Annexure P-1 with the paper book. A perusal of the said judgment would show that it was the case of the said Brij Lal-plaintiff-present respondent that he was in exclusive, independent possession of the suit property. In para 3, the plea of the present petitioner was noticed by the trial Court to the effect that when the petitioner had started raising construction of a shop over the suit land, the plaintiff/present respondent-Brij Lal filed the present suit and that the petitioner had raised the construction of a shop on the said land. The trial Court after considering the pleadings of both the parties as well as documents on record had observed that from the documents, it was apparent that the plaintiff-Brij Lal was in exclusive possession of the suit land and that there was nothing on record to show that the vendor of the defendant namely Om Parkash was in exclusive posse