The executing court cannot go behind the decree and the revisional court cannot remand the case to the executing court to decide objections that were not pressed before the trial court, first appellate court, or the High Court.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS were the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale.

( 2 ) MOHD. Bashir and Abdul Ghafoor were the predecessor in interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 13. They were the owners of the open piece of land in dispute. They executed an agreement to sell on 23-1-73 in favour of the petitioners. On the same day by means of another deed they permitted the petitioners to construct the boundary wall around the said land. It was done by the plaintiff. Subsequently Mohd. Bashir and Abdul Ghafoor expressed their unwillingness to execute the sale deed. This led the petitioners to file the suit in the year 1977 for specific performance of the contract for sale.

( 3 ) THE defendants filed their written statements. The execution and genuineness of the agreement to sell was challenged. The properties sought to be transferred were in two different parts belonging to two different persons, so the sale deed could not be executed. The defendants have raised certain construction over the land. The land ceased to be an open piece of land. No consideration had passed.

( 4 ) UNDER the orders of the trial Court, the Amin submitted his report showing two tinsheds which appeared to be new.

( 5 ) THE suit was decreed on 29-11-1980. The defendants first appeal was dismissed on 8-9-1986 by the Ist Addl. District Judge. The High Court dismissed the second appeal on 10-12-1987. The decree became final.

( 6 ) IN the meantime the petitioners had filed an execution case No. 3 of 1986. The respondents filed their objection under Section 47, C. P. C. They raised two objections (1) the properties sought to be transferred are two different properties belonging to two different persons and the decree for execution of contract for sale cannot be executed (2) there was no open land on the date of the agreement. There were already constructions on the same. The delivery of the possession of the open piece of land could not be given to the decree holder on account of the existing constructions.

( 7 ) THESE two objections were not pressed before the trial Court. Issues were not framed on these points. Even before the first appellate Court no such point was argued. When the respondents filed their objection under Section 47, C. P. C. the second appeal was pending in the High Court. These points were not argued even in the second appeal.

( 8 ) A copy of the judgment of the High Court dismissing the respondents second appeal has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition in which it has been stated that-"from a perusal of the tenor of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it is clear that only two submissions had been advanced before it. The first was that the defendants are ready to pay back the advance amount along with 24% per annum interest. . . . . . . The second submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the plaintiffs were the owners of two plots Nos. 32/ 116f and 32/116 E and they could not enter into joint transaction of agreement to sell dated 23-173. "both these points raised before the appellate Court as well as in the High Court have been decided against the defendants. The decree has attained finality. The executing Court cannot go behind the decree.

( 9 ) THE only point raised before the executing Court was that the decree passed by the Court below was defective one as the land in dispute was in two parts belonging to two different persons and the sale deed could not be executed. This objection was rejected on 19-12-87 against which the respondents filed a revision before the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Varanasi.

( 10 ) THE respondents raised new points before the revisional Court. The revision was allowed and the order of the executing Court was set aside. The case was remanded to the executing Court. The learned executing court was directed to decide the following questions :. (1) Who has raised the construction in dispute. (2) Whether the construction was made before