^'^ .^-^, /&9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RADHE SHYAM SHARMA -1 APPELLANT W.A. No.461/2011 Kalyan Singh Kurre, S/o Deo Prasad Kurre, aged about 58 years, R/o Village Mungeli, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Jeevan Lai Banjare, S/o Hari Prasad Satnami, aged about years, R/o Village Daupara, Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 The State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector Bilaspur (C.G.) h^ll^. WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(11 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEALTO DIVISION BENCH) ACT.2006 Appearance: Appellant Kalyan Singh Kurre appears in person with Mr. G.P. Kurre, Advocate. Mr. A.S. Kachhwaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondent No.2 on advance copy. ORALORDER (19.10.2011) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. ^"-.':""~%. ^, i ^.^^ :'^ v^y ^s^y f]b W.A.No.461/2011 Heard. The appellant/petitioner has fiied this appea! against the order dated 07.09.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.5221/2011 by the Writ Court. By the said order, the writ petition filed by the appeilant has been dismissed bytheWrit Court. The writ petition was filed chailenging the order datedl 1.07.2011 passed in Execution Case No.6A/2009 by the Civil Judge Class-11, Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Bythe sald order, the Executing Court has dismissed the objection of the judgment-debtor relating to identity of the land of which, the possession was to be handed over to the decree holder. !t is an admitted position that the First Appeal as also the Second Appeal fi!ed against the decree under execution have been dismissed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court. The Writ Court has held that the execution application is very specific and there is also no contrary report by the Executing Officer that the decree was not executable. The Writ Court, therefore, held that in the facts and circumstances, the Executing Court was right in dismissing the objection raised by the judgment-debtor and no interference was required in supervisory jurisdictlon by the High Court. Apart from the grounds taken in the appiication before the Executing Court, the appellant/petitioner has also argued on terms of the decree. An Executing Court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree is the settled proposition of law. In view of all this, we do not find any iltegality in the order passed by the Executing Court or the Writ Court. The Writ Appeal, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge .^rA-