CRP 126/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr SR Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner/judgment debtor by filing this instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 22 .03.2011 passed in Title Execution No. 2/2005 by the learned Executing Court ( Munsiff No. 1, Jorhat, Assam). The Title Execution No. 2/2005 has been initiated by the opposite party/decree holder for execution of decree passed in Title S uit No. 2/1998 in respect of the land under Dag No. 2019 of P.P. No. 356 of Bloc k No. 6 of Jorhat town. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing the impugned or der dated 22.03.2011 with a further prayer for a direction to the Executing Cour t to strictly adhere to the schedule of the land while executing the decree as p er the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2001 and not to disturb the peaceful pos session of her shop situated in Dag No. 2021. The instant petition has been file d by the petitioner with the apprehension that the opposite party herein may att empt to oust her from the possession of her tailoring shop situated in Dag No. 2 021 adjacent to the decreetal land. It is further urged by the learned counsel t hat the land covered by Dag No. 2021 is not the subject matter of the decree. Upon perusal of the materials on record and considering the fact that th e suit was decreed on contest vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2001 and the Executing Court vide impugned order dated 22.03.2011 directed the bailiff to exe cute the decree fixing 21.04.2011 for report, this Court is not inclined to stay the execution of the decree. It is well settled that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that she would be evicted from he r tailoring shop, standing at Dag No. 2021 which is not the subject matter of th e decree, as urged, has no basis. That being the position, no interference pas sed by the Executing Court vide order dated 22.03.2011 is called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is however made clear that possession of the shop of the petitioner w hich is not subject matter of the decreetal land, as urged, would not be matter of eviction. The revision petition stands disposed of. No costs.