1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.46 OF 2009 Nanaji Gajanan Upganlawar ..vs.. Shabbir Hussain s/o Fida Hussain. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 26th November, 2009. Heard Mr.M.P.Khajanchi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.D.L.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondent. This revision has been preferred against the order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Chandrapur, whereby he rejected an objection raised by the petitioner to the execution of the decree. The main objection that was raised by the petitioner was that there was no property in existence as described in suit and decree cannot be executed until decree is corrected. According to the applicant/ judgment debtor, execution does not pertain to the 2 property forming the subject matter of the decree and therefore, the said execution was liable to be dismissed. It was also contended that the decree holder/plaintiff has committed a forgery and therefore he should be prosecuted in as much as, he was claiming the amount which has already been deposited by the applicant/judgment debtor in the court. It is a settled law that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. The court is bound to issue a warrant of possession in accordance with the description of the property as given in the decree. If the Bailiff finds that the property, which is described in the plaint, is not in existence, the Bailiff may report the same but that does not prevent the court from issuing the warrant for possession. In view of this, this objection is not correct and learned Judge of the trial court has rightly rejected the application and the objection raised by the present petitioner. As far as second ground of forgery and an action under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum as against the order refusing to prosecute respondent under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. 3 With these observations, the Civil Revision Application is liable to be dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute