JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - This review application filed by Judgment Debtor seeking deletion of the sentence decree holder shall be entitled to possession also, from the operative portion of the order dated 2nd September 1981 in Execution Second Appeal No. 1001 of 1977 and the arguments advanced by learned counsel justify the apprehension which led to its incorporation. It was not by inadvertence or under mistake but after due deliberation to make the decree effective and not to render it dead letter and leave the doors open for another round of litigation. 2. There is no merit in the submission that it is not consistent with the findings recorded in the body of judgment. What has been said in respect of Sub-section (2) of Section 22 of Specific Relief Act was as a matter of law. But on facts the judgment debtor has been held to be bound by his undertaking. 3. The learned counsel urged that in adding the sentence this Court had gone behind the decree passed in executing court and therefore it had committed an error apparent on the face of record. According to learned counsel it is settled law that executing court cannot go behind the decree passed in suit itself. It was also urged that the court cannot substitute decree or frame new decree other than that which was passed in suit itself. Learned counsel also relied on the well known maxim that equity follows law. 4. In support of the submission the learned counsel cited decisions as well. It is not necessary to refer to any of them as the principle laid down in this decision is not disputed. As pointed out earlier the sentence was added because of the conduct of the judgment debtor which has been detailed in the last part of the order. The judgment debtor undertook not only to remove the construction, or claim any damages for removal but also to restore the property in the same condition. Learned counsel urged that even if undertaking is taken literally the Judgment debtor undertook to restore the property in the same condition as it was on that state. This cannot be stretched to mean that he undertook to restore possession. He could be directed to remove constructions but as he had come in possession earlier as is clear from plaint allegation this could not be held to be part of undertaking. This cannot be stretched to mean that he undertook to restore possession. He could be directed to remove constructions but as he had come in possession earlier as is clear from plaint allegation this could not be held to be part of undertaking. True the undertaking is vouched in clever words. But the judgment debtor having not been found to have any title and he having under stock to remove the construction which he was raising on the date the injunction was sought it is inequitable to let him remain in possession. Courts of law in our country are courts of equity as well and their primary concern is to-do justice between parties. 5. The application therefore fails and is rejected.