Civil Revision No. 2929 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2929 of 2011 Date of Decision: 4.5.2011 *** Baldev Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Surinder Mohan Sharma & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Shamsher Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. A decree for possession of a house situated at SAS Nagar Mohali, in which the petitioner is found to be a sub tenant under respondent No.2, was passed on 17.5.2001 in favour of respondent No.1 and he was held entitled for the possession of the said house along with arrears of rent @ 1195/- per month w.e.f. 1.7.1991 to 31.10.1993 along with interest @ 12% and further damages @ Rs.1195/- per month for the use and occupation of the property from the date of filing of the suit till vacation of the premises. The said decree was confirmed by the appellate Court. During execution proceedings he raised objections that the rent claimed was Rs.1150/- per month and hence the decree is to be modified to that extent; that no interest on the arrears was awarded, but has been calculated by the decree holder and that the possession of the house in dispute was delivered to the decree holder in the month of September, 2004. Vide orders dated 13.9.2010 and 28.2.2011 his objections were dismissed. Dis-satisfied with the same, the present petition has been filed. Heard. It is evident from the records that under the garb of typographically error, the petitioner wanted the executing Court below to go Civil Revision No. 2929 of 2011 2 beyond the spirit of decree dated 17.5.2001, qua the rent assessed by the trial Court, which was not within its domain because it is settled that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. An attempt was made by him to give otherwise interpretation of the verdict returned by the learned trial Court, which in fact suits him, than the one spell out in it, obviously to wriggle out of the said judgment and decree and to delay the proceedings. It has also come on record that the possession of the suit property was delivered to the decree holder in the month of January 2005 only that too with the police assistance and thus, it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the possession was reverted to the decree holder in the month of September, 2004. Taking into account these facts, the learned executing Court below rightly dismissed the objections of the petitioner-JD. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 04, 2011 Jiten