ORDER A.M. Sapre, J. Petitioner is a decree holder. She claims to have obtained decree on 17-11-1997 which was confirmed by this Court in S.A. No. 381/96. The decree is for partition and for separate possession of certain agricultural land etc. It is this decree which is put into execution by the decree holder to enable her to reap the fruits of the said decree which she obtained from the Court of law. The grievance of the petitioner (decree holder) is that though the said decree is put into execution before the executing Court wayback in 1999 but it has not seen the light of the day because for one or the other reason, as the order sheets of executing Court indicates that proceedings are being dragged with no sight in end. It is with this background, the decreeholder has approached this Court u/s 115 of CPC praying for a direction to the executing Court to expedite the execution case of the petitioner so that rights of the parties which are already adjudicated finally must come to an end in its logical sense. I have gone through the order sheets of the executing Court filed by the petitioner. It does appear that executing Court (Civil Judge Class II, Narayangarh, Mandsaur) has not made sincere efforts to expedite the execution case. Unnecessary adjournments are granted to the parties without assigning cogent reasons in the order sheets. When the case is listed for a particular purpose on a particular date, the Court must ensure that the purpose for which the matter is fixed on that date should be attended too promptly. As a matter of fact the Court must decide the issue for which the matter is fixed for on that date, unless it is so difficult to do that. Casual adjournments should always be avoided as far as possible. It only indicates shirking of responsibilities cast upon the Judge to decide the issue. The litigant begins to loose confidence upon the institution if the Judge avoids to decide the point which he is called upon to decide. In cases of execution the Court is not required to decide the rights of the parties. It being a well settled principle of law that executing Court cannot go into merits of the case while entertaining the execution application, nor it can go behind the decree. In cases of execution the Court is not required to decide the rights of the parties. It being a well settled principle of law that executing Court cannot go into merits of the case while entertaining the execution application, nor it can go behind the decree. Every efforts must be made to ensure that the decree holder must get the eventual rights by execution of a decree at an early date. This Court would not like to make any more observation than what are required and while deciding this revision ex parte and without notice to the other side only wish that the executing Court would be conscious of its judicial duty and would ensure expeditious disposal of the execution application without granting adjournments unless they are essential for deciding the issue. It is with these observations this revision is finally disposed of at motion stage without notice to the other side. C.C. on usual charges.