Honble KAPUR, J. – These two petitions arise out of the same proceedings hence are being decided together. (2). On 13th August, 1963 the appellate court namely the District Judge, Bharatpur passed the following decree :– ``This appeal succeeds. The judgment and the decree of the trial court are set aside. Instead a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant is hereby passed restraining the defendant permanently from raising any construction over his open piece of land lying towards the east of the plaintiffs house, particulars of which are to be found at the foot of the judgment, so as to close or put any obstruction in the plaintiffs right of way over that piece of land theo- ugh the plaintiffs door lying on the northern side of their house. The defendant shall further close the foundation he has dug with a view to raise the construction of a wall, if it really puts an obstruction in the plaintiffs right of way as demarcated below. It will be for the defendant servient owner to demarcate the way over his open piece of land within two months from the passing of the decree. If the defendant fails to demarcate that way, the plaintiffs shall take the nearest way they can, but in that case they will see that the using of the defendants land is least obstructed and in no case the plaintiffs shall use the way more than three feet in width. The plaintiffs will further see that in case the defendant does not point out the way, they will use the open piece of land of the defendant at the northern portion of the defendants land, so that the defendant is not debarred from using his rest of the land. The plaintiffs shall get their costs of both the courts from the defendant-respondent. By this decree the plaintiff was given a right of way on three feet of land and at the same time the defendant was restrained from raising any construction over this open piece of land. It so happened that in the year 1990, the defendant petitioner constructed a portico at the height of 10 in this land of rasta and the plaintiff moved an execution application. It so happened that in the year 1990, the defendant petitioner constructed a portico at the height of 10 in this land of rasta and the plaintiff moved an execution application. The executing court after hearing the par- ties held by his order dated 19th August, 1994 that the judgment debtor has been restrained from making construction on the open land and he could not make any construction at any height whatsoever, and that he could not enter into controversy whether the decree holder was put to any inconvenience or not by the construction at a height of 10. He therefore, directed the judgment debtor to remove the constru- ction of the portico and further ordered that if this was not done within a period of one month, he would undergo civil imprisonment for two months. The petitioner preferred a revision petition against this order which is S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1130/1994. In the meantime he also removed the portico but two girders of this portico are still existed at the height of 10. Therefore, the decree holder again clai- med that the order of the executing court dated 19th August, 1994 had not been complied with and the judgment debtor should be sent to civil prison. The executing court ordered on 11th January, 1995 that compliance of the order dated 19th August, 1994 had not been made hence, the decree holder should take steps for sending him to the civil prison. Against this order, the second revision No. 151/1995 has been filed. (3). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on both the petitioners. First of all it was contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner decree holders that the petition No. 1130/1994 has become infructuous as compliance of the order has already been made. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not agree to this. According to him if he does not challenge the order at this stage it would mean that for all the times to come he would not be able to raise construction even at a height after giving way for the decree holder. Hence, this petition is also to be decided. (4). The main question is whether the decree passed in the suit prohibits and restrains the judgment-debtor from raising constructions even at a height which would not obstruct the right of way of the decree holder. Hence, this petition is also to be decided. (4). The main question is whether the decree passed in the suit prohibits and restrains the judgment-debtor from raising constructions even at a height which would not obstruct the right of way of the decree holder. The right of way of the decree holder has been upheld over the piece of land which is infront of a Nohra. The plaintiffs door is on the northern side. Wherever the words `open piece of land has been used it has been used to describe the land upon which the decree holder will have a right of way but it does not specifically say that this open piece of land shall be kept open to the sky at all heights. The words used in the decree are that the defendant is restrained permanently from raising any construction over his open piece of land lying towards the east of the plaintiffs house particulars of which are to be found at the foot of the judgment, so as to close or put any obstruction in the plaintiffs right of way over the piece of land. The plaintiffs door is on the southern side of the house. The purpose of restraining the defendant from making constructions has been specified in the decree itself by saying that the construction should not close or put any obstruction in the plaintiffs right of way over that piece of land. When the plaintiff has a right of way over the land in dispute and this right of way has to be allowed permanently and cannot be obstructed by raising any construction, there is nothing in the decree to restrain the defendant from raising any construction which does not amount to obstruction in the plaintiffs right of way. By interpreting the decree which has been passed it can be said that the land has been described as open piece of land and the restriction is on permanent obstruction in the right of way of the plaintiff. Hence, if the defendant makes any construction then unless the plaintiff decree holder is able to show that the construction has obstructed his right of way, he cannot contend that the decree passed by the court, has been violated, or disobeyed in any manner. Hence, if the defendant makes any construction then unless the plaintiff decree holder is able to show that the construction has obstructed his right of way, he cannot contend that the decree passed by the court, has been violated, or disobeyed in any manner. In the present case, the executing court has not given a finding that the construction of a portico made by or girders fixed at a height of 10 has in any manner obstructed the right of way of the plaintiff-decree holder. In absence of any finding to this effect, the orders cannot be upheld. (5). In passing the above orders, the learned executing court has committed jurisdictional error as without giving any finding about the obstruction of the right of way of the plaintiff-decree holder he has ordered demolition of construction. It may be clarified here that construction by petitioner at any height can become contrary to the decree if the decree holder is able to satisfy that his right of way has been obstructed. (6). In the result, both the revision petitions are allowed. The orders of the court below are set aside. However, that part of the order by which the petitioner has been directed to remove the 15" obstruction in the land of rasta is concerned, that is upheld.