Dave, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. In relation to the difficulties faced by a decree holder in execution of the decree, in 1872, the Privy Council had observed that “…….the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a Decree……”.

3. Even today, in 2013, the position has not been improved and still the decree holder faces the same problem which was being faced in the past. We are concerned with the case of the appellant-plaintiff who had succeeded in Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Faridabad on 19th January, 1996. Decree was drawn in pursuance of the aforestated judgment but till today, the appellant-plaintiff is not in a position to get fruits of his success.

4. It is not in dispute that the judgment delivered in Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1993 in favour of the appellant has become final as it was not challenged before the High Court. In pursuance of the decree drawn, the appellant made several efforts to get the decree executed. His last effort, with which we are concerned, had been initiated in 1996, when he had approached the Court of Additional Senior Division, Palwal with an Execution Petition for execution of the decree.

5. As the decree had already been made in favour of the appellant, we need not go into the facts of the case, however it will be worth noting that by virtue of the decree, the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to possession of land admeasuring 80 sq. yard forming part of land of Khasra No.95/24/2 situated within municipal limits of Palwal town, District Faridabad. When the Execution Petition was filed, the Executing Court rejected the Execution Petition by observing that the decree was not executable because of certain contradictory reports. It is pertinent to note that the judgment in favour of the appellant-plaintiff was delivered by considering a report dated 17th September, 1989 and a sketch of land in question, which were made by the local commissioner and both are forming part of the record. It appears that some other reports were considered by the Executing Court and after considering all the reports, the Executing Court, by its order dated 16th March, 2009 came to the conclusion that the decree was not executable.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order dated 16th March, 2009, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Civil Revision No. 2047 of 2010. The said Revision application was rejected by an order dated 25th May, 2011 and therefore, the appellant-plaintiff has approached this court by way of this Appeal.

7. While confirming the order of the Executing Court dated 16th March, 2009, the High Court took into consideration the subsequent demarcation report dated 26th July, 2010 and after discussing both the reports came to the conclusion which had been arrived at by the Executing Court.

8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff as well as for the respondents.

9. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, the High Court was not right while confirming the order passed by the Executing Court for the reason that the Executing Court had taken into account certain other reports for the purpose of rejecting the execution proceedings and for coming to the conclusion that the decree was not executable.

10. Looking to the facts of the case and upon hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the order passed by the Executing Court dated 16th March, 2009, which has been confirmed by the High Court is not correct for the reason that the Executing Court ought not to have considered other factors and facts which were not forming part of the judgment and the decree passed in favour of the appellant plaintiff. Once the decree was made in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, in pursuance of the judgment dated 19th January, 1996 delivered by the District Judge Faridabad, in our opinion, the Executing Court should not have looked into other reports which had been submitted to it afterwards.

11. Upon perusal of the rep