Civil Revision No. 7120 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7120 of 2008 Date of decision: 05.09.2009 Amar Singh ....Petitioner versus Dhan Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 4. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.8.2008, passed by the learned Executing Court, on an application moved under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession claiming that he was in possession of 14 marlas of land along with other co-sharers. The suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff/appellant was decreed. An appeal preferred by third party, was disposed of on the basis of compromise, under which it was agreed that the plaintiff/petitioner would be entitled to 2 marlas of the land. The defendant/respondents were not party to the said compromise. Civil Revision No. 7120 of 2008 -2- The petitioner-decree-holder thereafter moved an application in the learned Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for enforcing the injunction order against the defendant/respondents, on the plea that in violation of the injunction passed, judgment-debtors have raised construction, over the suit land. The learned Executing Court, in order to determine the factual position, appointed Local Commissioner, who submitted his report, wherein it was reported that the defendant/respondents had, in fact, encroached upon the land. It was also reported that the plaintiff/petitioner has also raised construction over more than two marlas of land i.e. 190 sq. yrds. The learned Executing Court while enforcing order, against defendant/respondents, also ordered demolition of the property of the plaintiff/petitioner, on the ground that he had encroached upon land, not falling to his share. It is not in dispute, that the construction raised by the judgment-debtor stands razed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the impugned part of the order, vide which his construction has been ordered to be demolished, cannot be sustained in law, as there was no decree against the petitioner/plaintiff, which could be executed by the learned Executing Court. The right, if any, with the other party, was to seek appropriate direction for demolition of the encroachment by filing a separate suit. There is force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled law, that the learned Executing Court Civil Revision No. 7120 of 2008 -3- cannot go behind the decree, nor is capable of passing an equitable order to do justice between the parties, as provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be applied by the learned Executing Court, in absence of any decree. The impugned part of the order directing the demolition of the property of the petitioner, therefore, is ordered to be quashed. However, this shall not debar the defendant/respondents to claim appropriate relief of filing a separate suit. Revision allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 05, 2009 R.S.