The Court retains control over a decree for specific performance and is empowered to grant ancillary reliefs to protect its orders and give them sanctity.

ORDER :

1. Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is the order rendered by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in E.A. No. 38 of 2017 in E.P. No. 17 of 2008 in O.S. No. 696 of 1996 dated 13.11.2017.

2. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. Also gone through the contents of the written submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner. Perused the contents of the decisions that are relied upon by both the learned counsel.

3. A perusal of entire material that is brought on record reveals the following case facts:

(i) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 696 of 1996 that stood pending on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar against the revision petitioner for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 22.11.1995 in respect of the land, in Survey No. 283 of Ankushapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring Acs.4.29 guntas.

(ii) The said suit was decreed on 31.3.2003. The revision petitioner, who is the defendant to the said suit, was directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs/decree-holders in respect of the suit schedule property after receiving the balance of sale consideration.

(iii) The respondents/plaintiffs/decree-holders filed an Execution Petition vide E.P. No. 17 of 2008 seeking the Court to direct the revision petitioner/defendant/judgment-debtor to execute a registered sale deed in their favour in respect of the suit schedule property.

(iv) In the light of failure of the revision petitioner/defendant/judgment-debtor to execute the sale deed, the Court below executed the registered sale deed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs/decree-holders.

(v) The respondents/decree-holders moved an application vide E.A. No. 38 of 2017 under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC, Order XXI Rule 35 CPC and Section 144 CPC seeking for delivery of possession of the E.P. schedule property. The Executing Court through orders dated 13.11.2017 allowed the said application. It ordered delivery of possession of the E.P. schedule property by dismantling the illegal structures raised by the revision petitioner/judgment-debtor.

4. Aggrieved by the said order passed in E.A. No. 38 of 2017, the judgment-debtor is before this Court.

5. Arguing at length in respect of the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/judgment-debtor contended that the Executing Court is not expected to and should not go beyond the contents of the decree and the decree is passed only for execution of sale deed and thus, entertaining a separate application for delivery of possession is illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that the version of the respondents/ decree-holders, who are the plaintiffs to the suit, is that they were in possession of the property from the inception of the suit itself and if that being the situation, the question of delivery of possession of the same property does not at all arise and that, filing an application for delivery of possession itself falsifies the version of the respondents/ decree-holders that they were in possession of the property, but without considering all these aspects, the Executing Court simply entertained the said application and granted the relief of delivery of possession which is against the established principles of law and therefore, the revision petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC or Order XXI Rule 35 CPC or Section 144 CPC does not permit for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property in an execution application when the said relief was not sought for in the suit, but this aspect was not taken note by the Court below.

6. Vehemently opposing the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the revision petitioner, who was the defendant to the