The relief of possession is implicit in a decree for specific performance, and the executing Court has the duty to find out the true effect of the decree, even if possession was not specifically claimed by the plaintiff.

( 1 ) THIS revision is filed by the judgment-debtor against an order whereby the executing Court has directed them to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a contract against the present petitioners. In the said suit relief for possession was not asked by the plaintiff, as the plaintiff alleged that he is in possession of the suit property. Ultimately, a decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the plaintiff. As the plaintiff has not prayed for the relief of possession in the plaint itself, the decree is silent on the point of possession. After obtaining the decree for specific performance the respondent filed execution proceedings in which he has claimed not only the relief of execution of the document but also for possession.

( 3 ) THE petitioners objected to the relief of possession. The said objections were overruled by the executing court and the executing Court directed the petitioners to execute the sale-deed as well as to hand over the possession of the suit property. This order is under challenge in the present revision.

( 4 ) THE main contention of the petitioners in this revision is that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and is required to execute the decree as it is. The executing Court has no jurisdiction to alter or change the nature of the decree and in spite of the said settled principle of law the executing Court in this case has directed to hand over the vacant/possession of the suit premises in favour of the decree-holder. This direction, according to the petitioner, is without jurisdiction. Hence, this revision.

( 5 ) SHRI K. L. Mangal, learned counsel for the petitioners, for this purpose relied on the provisions of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act. According to him, under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act the plaintiff alongwith the suit for specific performance may pray for appropriate relief including the relief of possession. According to him, sub-section (2) of the said Section creates a bar on the Court to grant any relief in favour of plaintiff which is not specifically asked for by him in the plaint. Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act reads as under : -. "section 22.- Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money, etc.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immoveable property may, in an appropriate case, ask for- (a) possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property in addition to such performance; or (b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or (made by) him, in case his claim for specific performance is refused: (2) No relief under Cl. (a) or Cl. (b) of sub-section (1) shall be granted by the Court unless it has been specifically claimed. Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in the plaint the Court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms may as be just for including a claim for such relief. (3) The power of Court to grant relief under Cl. (b) of sub-section (1) shall be without prejudice to its powers to award compensation under Section 21. "

( 6 ) SHRI K. L. Mangal relying on sub-sec-tion (2) of Section 22 has vehemently urged that in the present case the plaintiff has not asked for any relief for possession and, therefore, the said relief cannot be granted to him in execution proceedings. For this purpose, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Adcon Electronics Put. Ltd. v. Daulat and another. He invited my attention to para 16 of the said judgment. In para 16 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has reproduced Section 22 and has laid down that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sal