IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1122 of 2008 GYASUDDIN Versus BIBI ARJASHAN & ORS ----------- 2 05.08.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion this Court, the impugned order passed by the Executing Court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The Court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for carving out half of the suit property in course of final decree proceeding which was never allowed by the Court passing the decree. This Court would find that the decree which is sought to be executed, is one which had been passed by the appellate Court in First Appeal No. 3 of 1995 which allowed only 1/3 share in Schedule-I and II of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in fact, could not have gone beyond the decree of the appellate Court specially when his prayer for amendment in the plaint was also rejected by this Court by order dated 24.3.1998 in Civil Revision No. 1406 of 1997. The decree passed in the first appeal has also acquired finality by way of dismissal of the second appeal by defendants. In that view of the matter, the Executing Court, the Court below in course of preparation of final decree proceedings in - 2 - F.D. No. 188 of 1990 was absolutely justified in directing the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner to allow only 1/3rd share in favour of the plaintiff, decree holder. By doing so, the Court below has stood by the settled principle in law that Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. This Court therefore, would not find any merit in this application and the same is hereby dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)