THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4289 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner herein is judgment-debtor No.6, who filed this revision purportedly under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to assail the correctness of the order, dated 05.09.2008, passed in E.P.No.406 of 2002 in O.S.No.709 of 1984 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in allowing the execution petition at the instance of respondent No.1- decree holder. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the suit has been filed and ultimately, decreed on 16.06.1990 and in pursuance thereof, the decree holder sought execution of the same. For convenience sake, the decree granted in the suit reads as under: “that the 1st defendant be directed to remove the constructions made in the channel covered by ABCDEFGH. That the 1st defendant be given one month time to remove the constructions made in the channel ABCDEFGH. That the 2nd defendant be directed to remove the compound wall and latrine constructed in the channel covering CDEF. That the 1st defendant be further directed to remove the wall and latrine constructed on the compound wall of the plaintiff in between S.No.7/3 and 7/2 and the 2nd defendant be restrained in making a hole in the plaintiff’s wall as noted in para 16 of plaint. That defendants 1 and 2 be given one month time to do so or else, the same shall be done through process of law.” That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff Rs.1,566.50 towards costs and do bear their own costs of Rs.604/- by 1st defendant, Rs. Nil by 2nd defendant, Rs. Nil by 3rd defendant (No bill of costs filed for defendants 3 and 4) in the suit.” From the above, it is quite apparent that the decree has been granted only for removal of obstruction as alleged by respondent No.1-decree holder, whereas the present execution petition was laid for the restoration of the channel ABCEDFGH in terms of the decree. However, by taking into account the statement made on behalf of respondent No.1-decree holder that he is confining the relief to the forming of channel, the Court below proceeded to allow the execution petition and permitted the decree-holder to form the channel shown as ABCDEFGH in the decree and to recover the expenses incurred from the judgment debtors. It is this portion, which has been attacked by the petitioner herein on the ground that it is virtually contrary to the decree and also outside the scope of the very decree itself. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it is to be seen that the relief in regard to restoration of the channel is neither sought for in the suit nor was granted in the decree. The only relief sought for in the suit and granted in the decree is for removal of encroachment and not otherwise. Further, it is to be seen that the very execution petition was laid for removal of encroachment, but not for restoration of channel. It is only by taking into consideration the request made on behalf of respondent No.1, such restoration is sought to be granted, which squarely runs contrary to the very decree itself. It is well established that as long as there is no decree, the question of granting execution does not arise. May be removal of the channel could have been mostly the removal of encroachment, which entitles respondent No.1 to take fresh proceedings for any such action but not to lay the execution in the form, in which it has been laid and ordered. Hence, there is no justification in the impugned order and it is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J Dt: 21.01.2011. kdl