1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.451 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 953 OF 2008 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.163 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.3811 OF 1994 Mr. Deepak Rajendra Jain & Anr. .. Appellants Vs Nilan Harishchandra Muranjan & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Shailesh Shah i/by M/s. Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for the Appellants. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J DATED : 28TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 5th September, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber Summons No.953 of 2008 in Execution Application No.163 of 2007 in Suit No.3811 of 1994. It is not necessary for us to notice the facts in any greater details; suffice it to note that the same are precisely recorded in the impugned order. The learned Single Judge noticed that there was a consent decree dated 20th March, 1998 on the basis of which the parties had agreed to settle all their disputes. 2 Arguments raised before us now are that, by subsequent conduct, the parties had altered their position and as such automatically the decree stood altered. This argument is without merit in fact and in law, both. It is a settled principle of law that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and has to execute a decree as it stands. In addition to the above reasons also the fact is that the builders took possession of the land for an amount of Rs.1,06,00,000/-, constructed residential premises and galas, though it was not specifically agreed under the said consent terms, and after having earned huge profits, they cannot nullify the consent terms. 2. We see no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J