JUDGMENT : Banerji, J.:— In our judgment the order of the lower Court, of which the appellant complains, cannot be supported. It appears that in accordance with an award of arbitrators a decree was made in favour of the appellants in the following terms:— “We decree the plaintiff's claim for possession of both cho-baras referred to in the plaint, situate on lands Nos. 124 and 125, and prohibit defendants from ever interfering with plaintiff's right of building over the roofs of the said lands Nos. 124 and 125.” We are not concerned in this with the first part of the decree, but it is the second part to which the dispute between the parties relates. 2. The effect of the second part of the decree is to declare the plaintiff's right to build over the roofs of the plots Nos. 124 and 125 and to prohibit the defendants from] interfering with the plaintiff's right of building. The plaintiffs, decree-holders, made an application to the Court, stating that the defendants were interfering with them, and had not obeyed the decree. They accordingly prayed for the arrest of the judgment-debtors under the provisions of section 260 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. In answer to that application the defendants, judgment-debtors, said that they had not interfered with, or offered any obstruction to the plaintiffs, and that they had not disobeyed the order contained in the decree, The only (inquiry which the Court had to make upon these applications was, whether or not the defendants had disobeyed the decree, and whether or not they were liable to be imprisoned under section 260 of the Civil Procedure Code. For this purpose the Court, it appears, appointed a commissioner by consent of parties. In the order which was issued to the commissioner, it was, no doubt, stated that he was to go to the locality and have the decree enforced, but the real object of that order was to ascertain what was the state of things, and whether or not the Court should grant the application under section 260. Upon receipt of the report of the commissioner, the Court directed the case to be struck off the file. The effect of this order was that the application of the decree-holders for the arrest of the judgment-deblors lapsed; the Court evidently considering that the matter was at an end. 4. Upon receipt of the report of the commissioner, the Court directed the case to be struck off the file. The effect of this order was that the application of the decree-holders for the arrest of the judgment-deblors lapsed; the Court evidently considering that the matter was at an end. 4. The defendants, finding probably that the report of the commissioner was against them, made the application which has given rise to this appeal, in which they stated that the decree-holders had placed constructions to a larger extent on the roof than was warranted by the decree and prayed that after, a perusal of the commissioner's report and the decree, “an order be passed for demolition of the constructions to the extent of 4 feet 6 inches, which had been roofed contrary to the right of the decree-holders.” 5. The Court of first instance dismissed this application holding that if the decree-holders had made any construction in excess of their rights under the decree, the judgment-debtors had a right to have them demolished by separate suit. The judgment-debtors appealed against the order, and upon this appeal the lower appellate Court holding that the constructions had been made by the decree-holders in excess of their rights, ordered their demolition. We are of opinion that the lower appellate Court was incompetent in the execution department to make the order to which we have referred. 6. There was no question before it relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The only matter before the Court of first instance was the application of the decree-holders under section 260. It is that matter alone which the Court had to determine. If the decree-holders have made any constructions contrary to the right which the decree has declared, that is a matter which does not relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, and the Court, either of first, instance or of appeal, had no power to enter into it in execution proceedings. We express no opinion as to whether the erection made by the decree-holders were made in excess of their rights under the decree. If they have exceeded their rights, that is a matter in respect of which the judgment-debtors, if so advised may seek their remedy against the decree-holders. We express no opinion as to whether the erection made by the decree-holders were made in excess of their rights under the decree. If they have exceeded their rights, that is a matter in respect of which the judgment-debtors, if so advised may seek their remedy against the decree-holders. As we have already said, the Court in execution proceedings had 110 power to order the demolition of the erections made by the decree-holders. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Court below, and restore the order of the Court of first instance. The appellants will have their costs of this appeal, as also their costs in the Court below.