Honble MISRA, J.–This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent-Municipal Board, Uniara to handover possession of certain vacant plots which the petitioner claims to have purchased by way of an open auction on 20th September, 1982 and a further direction has been sought for issuance of a patta as well as the sanction letter for raising construction over those plots. (2). The question, therefore, which crops up for consideration is whether a writ can be issued for delivery of possession of certain immovable property even if it be admitted that the person seeking delivery of possession has prima facie a right to get the plot. (3). The circumstances under which this question requires consideration is that a notice was published by the respondent - Municipal Board, Uniara, District Tonk for auction of certain plots of land during the period from 19.9.82 to 21.9.82. The petitioner deposited the earnest money of Rs. 250/- on 19.9.82 and participated in the auction proceedings in respect of plot No.1 measuring 13" x 1" near a Bus Stand at Uniara, District Tonk. He also deposited Rs. 250/- for participation in respect of auction proceeding relating to another Plot No.2. According to the peti- tioners case he was the highest bidder in the auction for both the plots Nos. 1 and 2 and hence he deposited one-fourth amount of the total auction in respect of both the plots and a receipt dated 20.9.82 was issued in his favour for the sum of Rs. 1,918.58 paise which was the one-fourth amount of the total amount of bid of Rs. 7,674.33 paise. The petitioner also deposited Rs. 1,607.52 paise which was one-fou- rth amount of Rs. 6,430.07 paise of the total cost of second Plot No.2. The problem, however, arose for the petitioner as he did not receive any demand notice from the respondent-Board to deposit the balance amount of the bid and obviously he had not been handed over the possession of the plot also in dispute. The petitioner had to pursue by writing letters to the Board that the demand notice should be issued to him as he was the successful bidder in the auction. The petitioner had to pursue by writing letters to the Board that the demand notice should be issued to him as he was the successful bidder in the auction. The Municipal Board, however expressed its inability to allow the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of the auction and it was informed to him by letter dated 13.4.93 and 23.4.93 that there was a stay order operating against the Director of the Local Self Govt. since a suit had been filed before the Munsiff, Uniara in regard to those plots and hence further proceedings in the matter was not possible. The petitioner thereafter on 21.9.82 filed applications for his impleadment in two different suits which had been filed by two other claimants Anis Ahmed and Khalil Ahmed for permanent injunction in the court of Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Uniara, wherein the injunction order was issued against the Board in the suits referred to hereinbe-fore. The petitioners application for his impleadment in both the suits although was rejected by the Munsiff, it was allowed by this Court on revision filed by the petitioner vide Revision Petition No. 54/90. The petitioner thus was impleaded in the suit which finally was dismissed against Anis Ahmed and Khalil Ahmed on 29th March, 1993 and thereafter the appeal preferred by Anis Ahmed and Khalil Ahmed against the said judgment and order was also dismissed by the District Court of Tonk. (4). In view of the aforesaid dismissal of the suits, the petitioner has now filed this writ petition urging that the petitioner having been the highest bidder and having also deposited one-fourth amount towards the total cost of the two plots since he was the highest bidder, the Municipal Board should allow him to deposit the balance amount and handover vacant and peaceful possession of the plots in question. The respondent- Board was, therefore, called upon by way of a show cause notice to explain its inaction. (5). The respondent-Municipal Board in its reply, could not dispute the facts narrated hereinbefore but has come out with the plea that the two disputed plots were re-auctioned since the petitioner had failed to deposit the amount for the two plots as a result of which the plots standing in the name of the petitioner were cancelled and he was informed that he may take back the amount deposited by him from the respondent-Board. It has also been stated by the Board that the two persons Khalil Ahmed and Anis Ahmed were having physical possession of the land and were ready to deposit the auction amount of the plots with interest and penalty and they also deposited the remaining amount of the plots with interest and penalty and now they have completed the entire construction over the plots and the auction in the name of Shri Khalil Ahmed and Anis Ahmed have been regularised by issuing Patta of the plots in their favour. (6). Having gone through the facts of the case stated by the petitioner and the respondents explanation regarding issuance of patta in favour of Anis Ahmed and Khalil Ahmed one cannot escape from noticing that Anis Ahmed and Khalil Ahmed had filed suits against the auction of their plots and their suits for permanent injunction were dismissed against which their appeals also filed. It is difficult to appreciate how the Municipal Board inspite of dismissal of the suits of Anis Ahmed and Khalil Ahmed could issue a Patta in their favour and under what circumstance they re- auctioned the property in favour of Anis Ahmed and Khalil Ahmed against the judgment and order of the Munsiff of Uniara and the District Judge, Tonk. The respondent-Board has not been able to advance any reply in this regard, much less to the satisfaction of this Court, but inspite of this glaring illegality on the part of the respondent-Board it is also equally difficult to appreciate why the petitioner was lying idle and did not file any application bringing this fact to the notice of the civil court nor filed any cross-suit for delivery of possession of the property by the Judi- cial Magistrate, Uniara or before the District Judge, Tonk where the appeal of Anis Ahmed and Khalil Ahmed were filed. The petitioner in the alternative also failed to file an application for execution under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming delivery of possession of the auctioned property even after dismissal of the suits of the contesting claimants and instead has filed this writ petition for deli- very of possession of the land in question. (7). The petitioner in the alternative also failed to file an application for execution under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming delivery of possession of the auctioned property even after dismissal of the suits of the contesting claimants and instead has filed this writ petition for deli- very of possession of the land in question. (7). It is clearly beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction to issue writ or direction for delivery of possession of the plots to the petitioner as if it were an executing court and that too in absence of the affected party whose suit challenging the auction held in the year 1983 failed. The High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot act as an executing court directing any party to deliver possession of an immovable property regarding which the dispute had been entertained by a civil court. Although in the instant matter no decree is in existence, yet the relief which has been sought is in the nature of execution of a decree which cannot be entertained by issuance of a writ. The petitioner having succeeded in the suit which had been filed by A.S. Ahmed and Khalil Ahmed challenging the auction held in the year 1982 ought to have approached the same court claiming delivery of possession in view of the dismissal of the suits of the persons claiming the property which had been filed against the Board as also against the petitioner who himself got impleaded in those suits but failed to get such a decree for possession of the auctioned property. (8). It is worthwhile to state that even in a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell an immovable property, the relief of possession can be granted by the trial court itself and not by the High Court at the appellate stage and it has been held illegal by several decisions of the Supreme Court in numerous circum- stances that the relief claiming delivery of possession of the property in dispute cannot be granted by the appellate court even in matters arising out of civil suits and in the instant case such a remedy is claimed by way of a writ petition although the contest was before the civil court. (9). (9). A question under the circumstances may arise that if the petitioner purch- ased the property in an open auction held by the Municipal Board and the relief sought by the petitioner is against the Board and other parties had lost their case in the suits, the Municipal Board should give effect to the auction sale by delivering the property, but the petitioner can be presumed to have given up this remedy before this court once he chose to get himself impleaded in the suits which had been filed by other claimants challenging the auction and hence he elected his remedy by way of his impleadment in the suits for redressal of his grievance before a Civil Court. Hence it was most appropriate for him to seek the relief before the same court specially in view of the fact that entire amount had not been accepted by the respondent- Board towards the auction sale. The petitioner for the reasons best known to him remained inactive about his claim on the plots even though after claim of other contestants was negatived after dismissal of their suits and this Court cannot overstep its limits by issuing writs to the Municipal Board to deliver possession of the disputed plots to the petitioner. (10). This writ petition, therefore, is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek any other alternative remedy available to him under the Code of Civil Procedure claiming delivery of possession of the disputed plots in case he succeeds in establishing such claim.