1. In his petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.7.2007(Annexure P-5), whereby the execution proceedings are closed by the Court below.

Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under :

(1) The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents. The said suit was registered as Case No.57-A/1995. The Court below decided it by judgment dated 22.4.1999 (Annexure P-1). The Court below declared the petitioner as “Bhumiswami” of land in question and issued a permanent injunction in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents with the direction that they shall not interfere in the possession of the petitioner. The respondents assailed the said judgment by filing an appeal No.66-A/1999. The appellate Court affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. The respondents unsuccessfully assailed it by filing second appeal before this Court which was registered as Second Appeal No.14/2000. The second appeal was dismissed by Annexure P-3.

2. The petitioner filed an application for execution of decree on 19.5.2007 (Annexure P-4). The respondents filed their reply, Annexure P-9.The Court below by order 12.7.2007 closed the exection proceedings for following reasons:-

No.(i) : As per Khasra entries from 1998-99 to 2002-2003 (Col. No.12) it is admitted fact that the competent revence Court had cancelled the allotment in favour of the petitioner on which judgment and decree was passed.

No. (ii) : The petitioner had filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. He did not pray for any relief of grant of possession. Thus, execution Court cannot travel beyond the judgment and decree.

3. Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on various provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and judgments of various Courts, submits that the order passed by the Executing Court is bad in law and is perverse in nature.

4. On the countary, Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi by placing reliance on AIR 1983 A.P. 64 (P. Venkata Kasi Viswanadam vs. Vallabha Vyas) and 1998 (i) JLJ 403 = (1998) 2 SCC 510 (State of MP vs Mangilal Sharma), submits that the order passed by the executing Court is in accordance with law. He submits that this is settled in law that executing Court cannot add, alter or travel beyond the relief claimed and granted in the judgment and decree. He submits that the petitioner had not chosen to file the suit for possession and, therefore, he cannot claim possession by filing execution proceedings. By placing reliance on 2011 (4) MPLJ 656 (Anil Kumar vs. Afzal Anees). Shri Chaturvedi Submits that this petition is not tenable and petitioner has a remedy under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to file a revision. The contention of Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi is that under section 250 of M. P. Land Revenue Code the petitioner has a remedy for restitution of possession. Thus, an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. By relying on the language of section 51 CPC it is further argued that power to enforce execution is there where the Court has “specifically ordered to do something”. In the present case, as argued, since there is no direction to hand over possession, execution proceeding was not tenable.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. So far reason No. (i) aforesaid is concerned, the khasra entry, Annexure P - 10, shows that the petitioner’s allotment is cancelled pursuant to S.D.O.’s order passed in Case No.42 v-e- /87 -88 dated 29.11.1995. The stand of the respondents before the trial Court was that by Ex.D/6 in the Case No. 42 v-e- /87 -88 dated 29.11.1995 the S.D.O. cancelled the allotment, which were in favour of six persons, which includes the alloment in favour of present petitioner. The trial Court gave a specific finding that the aforesaid allotment order Ex.D/6 does not contain the name of present petitioner. The allotment was made in fav