B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri M. Rama Rao, learned Counsel appeal on behalf of the petitioner and Sri N. Rajeswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and at their request, the main revision petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. ( 2 ) PETITIONER herein, who is a decree holder, seeks to assail the orders dated 18-10-2000 in E. P. (SR) No. 4593 of 1998 in OS No. 1621 of 1983 on the file of iv Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad rejecting the execution petition filed in pursuance of a decree obtained by him. ( 3 ) THE facts, in brief, are that the petitioner herein, who was an employee of the respondent-Corporation, was terminated from service on 13-7-1979, against which the petitioner made a challenge by way of a civil suit in O. S. No. 1621 of 1983 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad. The said suit was decreed as per the decree dated 14-3-1989. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E. P. No. 67 of 1997 for the decretal amount and realized the said amount. Even in regard to the reinstatement as per the order, it is represented, across the Bar, that though there is some delay, the petitioner was reinstated. Now the present application has been filed on the ground that the respondent- corporation did not comply the decree in its true terms by reinstating the petitioner immediately and with all the consequential benefits. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service on 30-10-1998. Therefore, as a consequence to the said decree, the petitioner would not only be entitled to reinstatement, but also all the consequential benefits, including salary and other emoluments, which he is entitled to under law. Hence, he laid the present execution petition for realization of the amounts. ( 4 ) THE Court below, taking into consideration the objections raised by the respondent-Corporation, rejected the same on the ground that the relief claimed is outside the scope and ambit of the decree and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to lay the execution petition. Hence, he laid the present execution petition for realization of the amounts. ( 4 ) THE Court below, taking into consideration the objections raised by the respondent-Corporation, rejected the same on the ground that the relief claimed is outside the scope and ambit of the decree and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to lay the execution petition. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri M. Rama Rao, by placing reliance on the Judgments reported in m. Premanandam v. Regional Manager, state Bank of India, Regional Office, vijayawada and another, 1996 (1) ALD 360 and in S. Ramachandraiah v. Nagarjuna Grameena Bank and another, 1996 (1) ALD 1069 , contended that as a consequence to the setting aside order of termination, the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement and also all the emoluments. Since the said amounts have not been paid, the petitioner laid the present execution petition. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent- corporation, Sri N. Rajeswararao, submitted that the amount, to which the petitioner is entitled to as per the decree, has already been realized by him and therefore, the present execution petition, as laid, is not valid and the Court below rightly rejected the same. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the submissions made on either side and also on perusal of the material on record, the question that falls for consideration in this revision is as to whether the execution petition as has been framed and laid is in terms of the decree obtained by the petitioner?. ( 7 ) THE facts are not disputed. The services of the petitioner, being an employee of the respondent-Corporation, were terminated on 13-7-1979, which was challenged in the suit O. S. No. 1621 of 1983. The said suit was decreed on 14-3-1989. For convenience, the terms of the decree are extracted below:"1. It is hereby declared that the proceedings of the Managing Director s proceeding no. 21960/admn. /iv/l/76 dated 23-7-1979 as illegal and the dismissal of plaintiff from service in pursuance of the said proceedings as wrongful and illegal in view of Article 113 of Limitation Act where the right accrued to the plaintiff as per Judgment of Criminal court dated 23-4-1982. 2. The defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 48,175-25 ps with interest at 6% p. a. from the date of suit till the date of realization. 3. 2. The defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 48,175-25 ps with interest at 6% p. a. from the date of suit till the date of realization. 3. It is further ordered and decreed that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 2,432/- towards costs of the suit. " ( 8 ) ON a reading of the said decree, it is clear that the suit has been decreed by setting aside the termination order dated 23- 7-1979 and that the petitioner was granted a sum of Rs. 48,175-25ps. with interest at 6% p. a. from the date of suit till the date of realization, apart from the costs of Rs. 2,432/ -. There is no dispute that the amount awarded under Clauses 2 and 3, as stated above, has already been realized by the petitioner in e. P. No. 67 of 1997. However, the case of the petitioner is that since the termination order has been set aside and having regard to the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, he would be entitled to the emoluments as damages. Therefore, execution petition is laid. On a bare reading of the judgment and the terms of the decree, it is seen that no specific relief is granted in favour of the petitioner for any such consequential amounts or damages. Except the prayer for setting aside the termination order, the petitioner did not seek any relief for payment of the amounts either towards damages or otherwise. The plaint does not bear such prayer. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on the last portion of the plaint wherein he sought "any other relief. According to him, these amounts are consequential which are incidental to the first relief i. e. , setting aside the termination order. Therefore, once suit is decreed as prayed for, it would fall within the decree. I am not prepared to accept such sweeping submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The above referred decisions relied upon by the petitioner arise out of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is needless to refer the scope, ambit and scope of the court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is sufficient to notice that they are far wider and quite distinct in contra to the Civil Court. It is needless to refer the scope, ambit and scope of the court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is sufficient to notice that they are far wider and quite distinct in contra to the Civil Court. Necessarily, the executing Court has to go only by the decree and in any circumstances, it cannot go beyond and behind the decree to look into or grant any such relief. Any other relief as claimed in the plaint would not include all such reliefs to which one may be entitled to, as a consequence to the basic relief, which was granted by the Civil court. Having thus not asked for any such relief for damages or for the emoluments and the same having not been formed part of the decree, the Court below was right in rejecting the execution petition. Hence, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, this revision petition is dismissed. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to avail any other remedy to which he is entitled to under law. No costs.