JUDGMENT : Burkitt, J.:— In my opinion the order of the lower appellate Court cannot be supported. The decree passed in this case did not contain any word by which the defendant-appellant here, was directed to perform or to abstain from any particular act. It was a general decree for possession “by demolition and removal” of something. How possession can be given by demolition of something I cannot understand. Anyhow, there was no order addressed to the defendant directing him to demolish or remove anything. In this state of things the Munsif, in execution of the decree called in aid the provision of section 260 of the Code of Civil Procedure, drew up a kind of decree supplementary to that passed by the Court that gave the decree. 2. The execution Court took upon itself to issue a notice which professed to be based on section 260 and directed the defendant to do several acts under pain of punishment. This is a most unwarrantable order. I am surprised that it has been approved by the lower appellate Court, When the decree as passed did not contain any direction to the defendant to do or refrain from doing any act, the Court executing that decree had no power to amplify its terms by calling in aid section 260 of the Code. If the Court which passed the decree considered it necessary to direct the defendant to do or abstain from doing any act, it would not doubt if itself have so ordered. It is not within the province of an execution Court to modify and extend in this way a decree which is under, execution before it. The execution Courts here appear to have acted as if they were the Courts actually passing the decree. I allow this appeal and set aside the decision of the two lower Courts with costs.