VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the petitioner - Decree Holder in execution petition No. 50/96 questioning the order of the Executing court, rejecting the report of delivery of possession of execution of the schedule property. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are: The Petitioner is the absolute owner of the land Sy. No 36 measuring 4 acres 1 gunta of Sonnappanahally village, Jala Hobli, previously Devanahally Taluk, now Bangalore north Taluk, which was a religious charitable inarn land attached to the deity of Anjaneya Swamy Temple of Sonnappanahally Village. The Land Tribunal Devanahally granted occupancy right in favour of the petitioner by the order dated 22. 5. 1982. The respondent judgment-debtor has encroached 27 guntas out of 4 acres 1 gunta in Sy. No 36. At the instance of the petitioner, the ADLR doddaballapur measured the land Sy. No. 36. While fixing the boundaries, it is found that the judgment debtor has encroached upon 27 guntas of land and the ADLR also demarcated the portion of the encroached area following the survey conducted on 7. 5. 1985. The entire area in Sy No. 36 is within the boundary. ( 3 ) THE petitioner contended that he filed suit in O. S 186/85, subsequently renumbered as O. S. 358/89. The said suit came to be decreed on 31. 1. 1996. In view of the said decree, the respondent was directed to deliver vacant possession of 27 guntas in Sy. No. 36. But. the respondent has failed to comply with the decree. Therefore, the petitioner has filed Execution Petition No. 50/96. Delivery warrant was issued to the respondent on 5. 8. 1996. The bailiff of the Court below went to the spot along with the petitioner to execute the warrant and he finds difficulty to execute the warrant in view of the obstruction caused by the respondent. Ultimately, the bailiff filed the report, reporting about the obstruction caused by the respondent as per Ex. C. 5-A and in view of the said report one suryakantha was examined as CW. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed i. A. IV under Section 151 and sought for police help. The Court below vide order dated 15. 11. 1996 allowed the application and ordered for police help and adjourned the matter to 30. 11. 1996. C. 5-A and in view of the said report one suryakantha was examined as CW. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed i. A. IV under Section 151 and sought for police help. The Court below vide order dated 15. 11. 1996 allowed the application and ordered for police help and adjourned the matter to 30. 11. 1996. Again the delivery warrant was issued and allotted to one H. C. Venkataramaiah has been examined as CW. 1. The said Bailiff after securing the police help went to the spot and found two security personnel belonging to the judgment debtor and the contents of the delivery warrant was made known to them. The respondents voluntarily removed the two sheds from the schedule property and have surrendered the vacant possession to the petitioner. After the petitioner got possession of the Schedule property, he removed the existing cement poles and wiring put by the respondent and erected a fresh fencing with stone slabs. Thus, the delivery warrant was executed on 29. 11. 1996. ( 4 ) IT is further contended that on the application filed by the respondent under Section 47, the executing Court examined C. Ws 1 to 3 in support of the application and the respondent examined one witness as DW. 1, and the documents Exs. C1 to C5 and Exs. P. 1 to P. 5 got marked. The Executing Court found that there is no proper demarcation and identification of the land measuring 27 guntas while executing the delivery warrant and the report filed by the Bailiff regarding execution of delivery warrant was rejected by the order dated 10. 9. 1997. It is against the above order, the present petition has been filed. ( 5 ) IT is contended that the executing Court has failed to consider the dictum in 1992 (11) Civil law Journal, 725 and A. I. R 1993 Calcutta 128. The evidence of DW. 1 who is a responsible officer of the respondent which is extracted below has not been properly considered. "i cannot say without referring the affidavit whether in the affidavit sworn to in support of I. A. 7, whether We claim 1 acre of land in sy. No 36. Our department has not secured only documents from survey Department Demarcating 1 acre of land in Sy. No. 36. No other permanent structure in Sy. "i cannot say without referring the affidavit whether in the affidavit sworn to in support of I. A. 7, whether We claim 1 acre of land in sy. No 36. Our department has not secured only documents from survey Department Demarcating 1 acre of land in Sy. No. 36. No other permanent structure in Sy. No. 36 apart from road, pillar and gate, f have not come across any official order Regarding repair of the said road. I do not know the length of the said road lying in Sy. No. 36. I have not come across order for erecting a tent in sy. No. 36. I have not come across any official order placing the security guard in charge of the tent in Sy,no. 36 during my tenure. I cannot say who were all security guards on 9. 8. 1996 deputed to that tent. As an officer I have not recorded any statement of the security guard regarding an incident occured on 9. 8. 1996. It is true that the document contained a direction to the J. Drs to deliver the schedule property to decree holder, I have not come across any boundary mark in Sy. No. 36 to the extent of our possession i. e. , 1 acre in the said Sy. No 36. It is true that the total extent of Sy. No 36, 4 acre 1 gunta. I am not aware about remaining land apart from the land which we own, in Sy. No. 36. I have not measured the land which we claim in our possession in sy. No. 36. On 9. 8. 1996 the Court officials showed me the land supposedly measuring 27 guntas in Sy. No 36 which required to deliver to muthurayappa. Now I see the photographs. The said photographs refer to the disputed property which are marked as ex. p. 2 to 5. I identify one person as Court official among some persons, who were present at the spot on 29. 11. 1996, who is holding delivery warrant. It is true before 29. 11. 1996, the property which one claimed by us maintained with fencing containing barbed wire with cement poles. It is also true now the fencing contain barbed wire with stone poles. It is true that no action was taken by us to remove the cement poles and placing with stone poles. It is true before 29. 11. 1996, the property which one claimed by us maintained with fencing containing barbed wire with cement poles. It is also true now the fencing contain barbed wire with stone poles. It is true that no action was taken by us to remove the cement poles and placing with stone poles. I do not know whether Muthurayappa removed the cement poles and barbed wire fencing and inserted stone poles with new barbed wiring. I am not in a position to answer, if it is suggested that on 29. 11. 1996, the Bailiff, the purchaser who were at the spot had no difficulty to identify 27 guntas of land in Sy. No. 36 which we claim. " ( 6 ) THUS the evidence clearly establishes that everything has been a proper demarcation and identification of the land measuring 27 guntas out of 4 acre 1 gunta in Sy. No 36. Even if it is considered that excess portion has been delivered, it is for the present Judgment debtor who is dispossessed to seek for restoration of possession. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, it is contended by the respondent that without there being surveying the land, there cannot be delivery. in fact they have filed an appeal in RA 90/96 for an order of status quo and the Court is directed that the respondent may approach the court for necessary relief of status quo in view of the application pending for enquiry. it is further submitted that the identify of the property is a mandatory requirement and without identity there can be no enquiry. Therefore, the order has been properly passed. ( 8 ) HEARD the respective Counsel. ( 9 ) THE question is whether the order of the Trial Court setting aside the delivery is sustainable? ( 10 ) PRIMA facie such an order is not permissible under Section 47 of the CPC. Section 47 contemplates as follows:"question to be determined by the Court executing decree: (1) all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing" the decree and not by a separate suit. Section 47 contemplates as follows:"question to be determined by the Court executing decree: (1) all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing" the decree and not by a separate suit. " ( 11 ) IN Section 47 the adjustment or otherwise of the decree has to be considered and even if the Court comes to the conclusion the decree has not been properly satisfied, it is the primary duty of the court to see that the warrant is to be reissued and the delivery is made. Therefore, the order is prima facie not sustasnable. On facts the Court is under the mistaken impression that there has been no demarcation at all; it is an error apparent on the face of the record. It is not as if the respondent is not aware of the area belonging to the plaintiff which is in his possession. As he was a party to the suit and is certainly not a third party. So long as the defendant is a party to the proceeding and have raised all the objections in the defence, including one of identity of the property, once a decree is passed, it is not open to the defendant to raise a question again before the executing Court. The executing Court is certainly cannot go beyond the decree and that is a settled law. In fact in this case notwithstanding the fact that the judgment debtor is the Commanding officer of the Air Force, a police help was granted by the Court and along with the police help only the delivery was made. Once the delivery was made and the portion has been demarcated by putting the fence. It is certainly not open to the judgment debtor to claim that the delivery is bad. In any event, once the delivery is made, execution petition gets terminated and it is certainly not legal for the court below to go into the actual delivery without resorting to any provisions of law under Order 21. There are provisions for objection to the delivery or obstruction to the delivery. In any event, once the delivery is made, execution petition gets terminated and it is certainly not legal for the court below to go into the actual delivery without resorting to any provisions of law under Order 21. There are provisions for objection to the delivery or obstruction to the delivery. But once without noting obstruction a delivery is made, the remedy of the petitioner is to seek for redelivery of alleged excess portion, if really there be an alleged excess, and if it is otherwise the judgment debtor could have informed the Court the exact portion which belong to the decree holder and which is the subject matter of the suit, in this case, the judgment debtor is not a third party and he was an active participant in the suit. The evidence on record clearly discloses that the property has been properly identified by the Bailiff with the help of the police. I find the approach made by the executing Court is thoroughly wrong and misapplied the law on the point. The evidence recorded which is extracted above is certainly goes to show that there has been proper compliance of the provisions of the C. P. C. I am also satisfied that there is no violation of law and the remedy. of the judgment debtor has been misconceived. Such a I. A. is not maintainable under section 47. ( 12 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the Revision Petition is allowed and the I. A. is dismissed, and the delivery already made is confirmed and recorded. --- *** --- .