1. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision has been filed aggrieved by the Order dated 16.2.2016 (Annexure A-5) passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Junnardev in Execution Civil Suit No. 455-A/1994 whereby the Executing Court below has allowed the application of non-applicants No. 1 to 3 filed under section 151 of CPC for fresh demarcation.

3. The case in brief is that the petitioner is a decree holder. He had earlier filed a suit for possession and for permanent injunction against the respondents. The trial Court has passed the decree on 20.1.2000 on following terms :

^^¼1½ oknh dks Áfroknh fookfnr Hkwfe tks [kŒuaŒ 71 esa fLFkr gS ftlds vkXus; fn'kk okyh vke lM++d ls yxh gqbZ gS 11 xq.kk 12 ¾ 132 oxZQhV voS/k :i ls fd, x;s vfrØe.k dks rksM+dj fu.kZ; fnukad ls nks ekg ds vanj fjDrkf/kiR; Ánku djsxkA

¼2½ oknh dh fookfnr [kŒuaŒ 71 dh jdck 150 gsŒ Hkwfe ij Áfroknhx.k dks voS/k :i ls dCts esa n[kyvankth nsus ls LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk }kjk fu"ksf/kr fd;k x;kA

¼3½ ÁŒihŒ 2] ihŒ 3 dh lhekadu fjiksVZ vkSj uD'kk fMØzh dk Hkkx ekuk tk,xk vkSj bUgha nLrkostksa ds vuqlkj buesa nf'kZr Hkwfe dk [kkyh dCtk oknh dks Áfroknh Ánku djsxkA

¼4½ okn dk laiw.kZ O;;] oknh dk oknO;; lfgr Áfroknhx.k ogu djsxsaA

¼5½ vf/koDrk 'kqYd Áekf.kr gksus ij fu;ekuqlkj fn;k tk,xkA rnkuqlkj fMØh ikfjr dh tk,A^^

4. The petitioner had filed an application for execution on 7.9.2015. After receiving the notice, the respondents appeared before the Court and filed objection that they had already given the possession of the land pursuant to the decree on the same day and even after obtaining possession of the area mentioned in the decree, the petitioner wants to grab their land under the garb of the said decree. Hence, a fresh Seemankan be done so as to determine whether the land has already been given to the petitioner or not. The Executing Court has allowed this application on the ground that there is a dispute regarding delivery of possession of vacant land which could only be decided through Seemankan, hence, appointed Tahsildar, Junnardev as Commissioner to do the Seemankan.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in execution cases, an executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and it must execute the decree as it is. Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in Bharat Bhushan Bhargava v. Mohit Bhargava and others [2012(4) MPLJ 566], in support of his contention. It is further pointed out that the Court below in para 31 of the judgment and decree had specifically mentioned about the Seemankan and the map. It is stated that the said Seemankan report and the map were never disputed by the respondents and the petitioner is only asking for possession on the basis of that Seemankan report and the map annexed therewith as per the decree.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the revision.

7. A perusal of the decree dated 20.1.2000 makes it clear that the Court below has not only mentioned the area of the land which was encroached upon by the defendants/respondents in para 31 of the judgment and decree, but has also mentioned that on the basis of Ex.P-2 and P-3 i.e. the Seemankan report and the map which are also part of the decree, vacant possession will be given to the plaintiff.

8. In Bharat Bhushan Bhargava v. Mohit Bhargava and others (supra), this Court has held, thus :

“12. In execution cases law is well settled that the executing Court cannot go behind or beyond the decree and it must execute the decree as it is and nothing more or less. This principle equally applies to the Court to which a decree is transferred for execution. It is also the law that the Court to which a decree is transferred has the same powers as the transferor Court.”

9. In view of the aforesaid settled position, this revision filed by the petitioner, is allowed and the order passed by the executing Court is set aside. The executing Court is directed to ex