Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed Partition Suit no.15 of 1977 against the defendants-opposite parties before the Subordinate judge, Palamu at Daltonganj for partition of their share. By judgment and preliminary decree dated 10-8-1984 the suit was decreed. Against that defendant no.1 has preferred F. A. No.6 of 1985 (R), which is pending before this court. 2. In the said judgment the trial court found that plot Nos.2688, 2711 and 2729, were developed by defendant no.1 and that his sister, defendant No.2 has relinquished her share in his favour and as such directed specifically that those three plots as well as the share of defendant No.2 to be allotted to defendant No.1. 3. The plaintiffs-decree holders took steps for preparation of final decree. Amin Commissioner was appointed, who after making allotment submitted his report. The Commissioner violated the aforesaid direction of the Court and acted as if he was acting as appellate court. He neither allotted plot nos.2711, 2729 and 2683 nor the share of defendant No.2 to defendant No.1. However, the trial court confirmed the said report of the commissioner and accordingly final decree was prepared, sealed and signed on 30th September, 1988. 4. No appeal was preferred against the final decree and the plaintiffs-decree holder, thereafter levied Execution case No.3 of 1989 for execution of the final decree. 5. The defendant No.1 in his appeal preferred against the judgment and preliminary partition decree made an application under Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code to stay the execution proceedings. This court on 27-4-1989 passed the following orders : "heard the Counsel for the parties on the stay matter : Delivery of possession with regard to building which is the subject matter of this appeal shall not be effected, but delivery of possession with regard to agricultural lands may be effected in Execution Case No.3 of 1989 pending in the Court of the Sub-Judge, palamu" 6. Defendant No.1 judgment debtor filed a petition under Sec.47 of the Code in the aforesaid Execution case, which was registered as Misc. Case No.31 of 1989. Defendant No.1 judgment debtor filed a petition under Sec.47 of the Code in the aforesaid Execution case, which was registered as Misc. Case No.31 of 1989. In the said objection maintainability of this proceeding was challenged on the ground that the final decree drawn by the Court on the basis of the report of the Amin commissioner was against the direction of the Court given in its judgment and preliminary decree dated 10-8-1934 and as such it was illegal, without jurisdiction and not executable. By order dated 23-8-1989 the executing Court allowed the Said objection and directed the commissioner to allot takhta in the light of the observations made in paragraphs 22 and 25 to 27 of the Judgment dated 10-8-1984 and to amend his report and the takhta accordingly. 7. On 1-9-1989 the decree holders filed a petition to recall the said order dated 23-8-1989 on the ground that by the impugned order the executing Court has reopened the final decree, which was beyond its jurisdiction. The said petition was dismissed on 27-7-1990. However, by order dated 20th August, 1990 the Executing Court recalled the orders dated 23-8-1989 and 27-8-1990 and directed the decree-holders to deposit the cost of Amin Commissioner to be deputed to fix pillars. 8. Defendant No.1-judgment debtor thereafter filed a petition under section 151 of the Code before the executing Court to recall the orders, dated 20-8-1990, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 27-4-1991 on the ground that the orders dated 23-8-1989 and 27-7-1990 were recalled inadvertently on 20- 8-1990. Further, the Executing Court has given direction to Amin Commissioner to amend the Takhta and his report according to judgment and preliminary decree and order dated 23-8-1989. The plaintiffs-decree holders have filed this civil Revision application against the said order dated 27-4-1991. 9. It is well settled that the Executing court has no jurisdiction and is not empowered to either amend or correct the decree under execution. The order dated 23-8-1989 (Annexure-1) giving direction to the Commissioner, in course of the execution proceedings, to make fresh allotments in conformity with the judgment and preliminary partition decree and a fresh report thereafter certainly amounted to interference/amendment in the final decree which was not permissible. 10. The order dated 23-8-1989 (Annexure-1) giving direction to the Commissioner, in course of the execution proceedings, to make fresh allotments in conformity with the judgment and preliminary partition decree and a fresh report thereafter certainly amounted to interference/amendment in the final decree which was not permissible. 10. It is true that the party aggrieved by the said order dated 23-8-1989 did not prefer any revision but immediately thereafter on 1-9-1989 defendant No.1 made a petition to recall the said order, which was dismissed and later on the Executing Court itself by order dated 20-8-1990 suo-motu recalled the same. In my opinion, since the aforesaid order dated 23-8-1989 was without jurisdiction, it was rightly recalled on 20-8-1990 and thereafter by the impugned order the prosecution court has committed an error in recalling the said order dated 20-8-1990 and thereafter by the impugned order the prosecution Court has committed an error in recalling the said order dated 20-8-1990 and thereby reviving the order dt.23-8-1989 and order which was passed beyond jurisdiction of the Court. 11. Once this Court is ceased of the revision then it becomes its duty to cast its eyes not merely on one part of the proceeding, but whole of it with an object that so far as possible justice may be done in such proceedings as a whole. In the present case, it appears that the entire execution proceeding was continued with confusion. The same Presiding Officer firstly passed an order which was beyond his jurisdiction, refused to recall the said order at the instance of the aggrieved party, subsequently recalled the same suo motu and thereafter at the instance of another party again revived the first order which was passed by him without having any jurisdiction to pass such an order. The Executing Court by the impugned order has reiterated its earlier direction to the Commissioner for which it was not empowered. 12. In the result, I allow this Civil provision application and set aside the order dated 27-4-1991 passed by the first Subordinate Judge, Daltonganj (Palamu) in Execution Case No.3 of 1989, whereby the order dated 20-8-1990 was recalled and earlier order dated 23-8-1989 was revived. The order dated 20-8-1990 by which the order dated 23-8-1989 was recalled is confirmed. 12. In the result, I allow this Civil provision application and set aside the order dated 27-4-1991 passed by the first Subordinate Judge, Daltonganj (Palamu) in Execution Case No.3 of 1989, whereby the order dated 20-8-1990 was recalled and earlier order dated 23-8-1989 was revived. The order dated 20-8-1990 by which the order dated 23-8-1989 was recalled is confirmed. However, if so advised, the defendant No.1 is at liberty to make an application under Sec.151 of the code before the Trial Court in Partition suit No.15 of 1979 for necessary amendments/corrections in the Final decree. Revision Allowed.