The revision petitioners are the judgment-debtors who suffered a decree in Title Suit No.39 of 1974 on the file of Munsiff, North Lakhimpur. The decree was obtained by the respondent herein. The respondent filed Title Execution Case No. 6 of 1985 seeking to enforce the decree. Revision petitioners filed a petition raising their objection and praying that the execution case may be dismissed. The learned Munsiff overruled the objection and allowed the execution case to proceed. This order is now challenged. 2. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was for two reliefs, namely, permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the revision petitioners from interfering with the respondent's peaceful possession of the land described in the plaint. The second relief is mandatory injunction directing the revision petitioners to remove the house erected by them unlawfully in the plaintiffs' land. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed granting injunction restraining the revision petitioners from interfering with the respondent's peaceful possession of the land and mandatory injunction for removal of the house in the land. In the relief column of the execution case, respondent stated that the revision petitioners have not vacated the land according to the decree and prayed that a writ may be issued and the petitioners may be evicted from the land decreed and khas possession may be given to the decree-holder. 3. The above relief claimed in the execution petition does not arise from the decree sought to be executed. If there has been a violation of the prohibitory injunction decree, the enforcement must be according to the provisions of Rule 32 of Order 21 CPC. If the decree-holder wanted to execute the decree relating to mandatory injunction, he should have made a specific prayer in that behalf The decree proceeded on the basis that the decree holder is in possession of the land. The execution proceeded on the basis that the judgment-debtor is in possession of the land. There is no decree for eviction against the revision petitioners. Therefore, the respondent could not ask the executing Court to issue a writ to the bailiff to evict the revision petitioners. In the circumstances, the impugned order is totally unsustainable and is set aside. The executing Court is directed to examine any other matter arising in the execution case in accordance with law. The revision petition is thus allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the executing Court on 19.2.92.