( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is at the instance of the respondents 1 and 3, who are the judgment-Debtors aggrieved against the order passed by the V Junior Civil Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad in E. A. No. 12 of 1986 in O. S. No. 1775 of 1973 under which the delivery of the E. P. , Schedule property was ordered to the petitioners/decree holders. ( 2 ) THE respondents 1 to 6 herein are the petitioners in the E. P. , seeking execution of the decree passed in O. S. No. 1775 of 1973, dated 15-11-1978. In the E. P. , the schedule property sought to be delivered was 16 acres 23 guntas in old Sy. Nos. 113, 114 and 125/3, corresponding to new Sy. No. 93/1 of Thokatta village of Hyderabad Urban Taluk, Hyderabad district. The E. P. , was filed on 22-4-1986. Later, an amended petition was filed on 6-10-1999 seeking the very same relief, but it is not known why the amended E. P. was filed. ( 3 ) THE objection to the execution petition as per the counters, which are referred to in the impugned order, is that the suit was filed for only 16 acres 10 guntas in Sy. No. 93/1 for possession by ejectment and for payment of arrears. In the counters it was stated that an extent of 12 acres 23guntas in Sy. No. 93/2 has already been acquired from the decree holders and an award was also passed. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by ordering possession, and, therefore, sought to dismiss the Execution petition. It is also further stated that Judgment-Debtor No. 3 filed an additional counter stating that the suit was filed basing on old survey numbers 113, 114, 125/3 in respect of an extent 16 acres 23 guntas. In the absence of any clear boundaries to the extent, it is difficult to identify the old survey numbers. The entire land. covered by the old survey numbers is under the defence occupation. Therefore, the claim of the decree holders is baseless. The Executing Court, however, appointed a commissioner, who is a retired Assistant director of Survey and Land Records, and basing on the report of the said Commissioner, allowed the execution petition and ordered delivery of possession of the land in question. Aggrieved by that, the Judgment Debtors have come up with the present revision. The Executing Court, however, appointed a commissioner, who is a retired Assistant director of Survey and Land Records, and basing on the report of the said Commissioner, allowed the execution petition and ordered delivery of possession of the land in question. Aggrieved by that, the Judgment Debtors have come up with the present revision. ( 4 ) AT the time of hearing, the learned standing Counsel for the petitioners/ judgment Debtors contended that the claim of the decree holders in the suit was that an extent of 24 acres 28 guntas was acquired and possession was taken by the British army through District Collector, Hyderabad. The said extent comprised in old S. Nos. 112, 109, 110, 113, 114, 125/3, corresponding to new Sy. No. 93ofthokatta village, Hyderabad district. Out of the said extent, the plaintiffs in the suit claimed that an extent of 16 acres 23 guntas belonged to late B. Venkata Narsimha reddy, the predecessor of the plaintiffs in the suit. According to the learned counsel, an extent of 12 acres 23 guntas belonging to the plaintiffs/decree holders has already been acquired, which was shown in Sy. No. 93/2. It was not their case either in the plaint or in anyother proceedings that the plaintiffs/ decree holders were having any extent in the above survey numbers over and above 16 acres 23 guntas. Therefore, at the most, the decree holders are entitled only for an extent of 4 acres and there is no justification for the executing Court in ordering delivery of possession of 16 acres 10 guntas. If the impugned order is allowed, it would result in getting the possession by the decree holders in an extent of 28 acres 33 guntas, which was not the case of the plaintiffs in the suit, as this extent even exceeds the total extent of 24 acres 28 guntas, which was delivered possession to the British Army through District collector, Hyderabad in the year 1941. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that neither in the suit nor in the E. P. , any evidence was produced by the plaintiffs/decree holders showing the exact extent, which they were owning with reference to the detailed old survey numbers. Admittedly, new sy. No. 93 comprises of as many as six old survey numbers, of course, later Sy. No. 93 was again sub-divided into Sy. Nos. 93/1 to 93/4. Admittedly, new sy. No. 93 comprises of as many as six old survey numbers, of course, later Sy. No. 93 was again sub-divided into Sy. Nos. 93/1 to 93/4. The learned counsel also contended that even as per the plaint, they sought for a decree in respect of 16 acres 23 guntas of land in Sy. No. 93 corresponding to the old survey numbers 113, 114, 125/3 and not with any sub-division numbers of 93. But, however, the E. P. , was filed with a specific sub-division number i. e. , Sy. No. 93/1. Even no decree was sought for with that survey number and in fact, no such decree was passed in their favour. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, as, if it is allowed, it would cause serious loss to the petitioners in the revision, which are the public authorities. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondents/decree holders the learned counsel contended that the decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs, who filed the suit for recovery of possession as well as for arrears of rent. When a decree has been passed, which has become final, the petitioners/judgment debtors cannot oppose or object for execution of the said decree. The learned counsel also contended that the Executing Court cannot go behind or beyond the decree that was passed. The learned counsel also contended that though originally a decree was passed with reference to the extent decreed i. e. , 16 acres 23 guntas in Sy. Nos. 113, 114, 125/3, corresponding to New Sy. No. 93 of Thokatta village, but, however, later the said new survey number was amended, and an amended decree was passed by the Court, which passed the original decree. Therefore, there cannot be any objection by the judgment-Debtors for execution of the said decree, which has become final. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court in V. D. Modi v. R. A. Rehman, and in Ravinder kaurv. Ashok Kumar and another and sought to dismiss the revision as the impugned order does not warrant any interference. ( 6 ) IN reply, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners/judgment Debtors contended that the acquisition proceedings were initiated in March 1973 where 12 acres 10 guntas were acquired for which the compensation has already been paid as per the Award passed. ( 6 ) IN reply, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners/judgment Debtors contended that the acquisition proceedings were initiated in March 1973 where 12 acres 10 guntas were acquired for which the compensation has already been paid as per the Award passed. If the said extent of land is excluded, the decree holders are left with only 4 acres 13 guntas to which they are entitled at the most, if they are able to prove that the said extent is in the possession of the judgment Debtors. It is also stated that the suit was filed on 11-9-1973 for recovery of possession of the entire extent of land owned by the respondents/decree holders. Therefore, they are not entitled for a decree for recovery of possession over and above the extent, which they claimed as per the plaint, which remains intact even as on date. ( 7 ) FROM the above rival contentions, the issue to be considered is whether the impugned order passed by the Executing court ordering delivery of possession is just and valid in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the suit - O. S. No. 1775 of 1973 was filed for recovery of an extent of 16 acres 23 guntas comprisingthree old survey numbers 113, 114, 125/3 of Thokatta village of Hyderabad district. It is also stated that the said land belongs to one late B, Venkata narsimha Reddy, father of Defendant No. 1 and paternal grandfather of plaintiffs 2 to 4. It was also made clear that the said three old survey numbers correspond to new Sy. No. 93. It was also made clear in the plaint itself that in the year 1941 an extent of 24 acres 28 guntas of land, comprising the old survey numbers 112, 109, 110, 113, 114, 125/3 of thokatta village, was requisitioned for the british Army under the provisions of the defence of Hyderabad Rules and was taken possession from the District Collector, hyderabad. The plaintiffs have also given detail bifurcation of the extents of the land as was informed by Defence authorities with reference to the Sy. No. 113 as 4 acres 13 guntas, in Sy. No. 114 - 4 acres 21 guntas and in Sy. No. 125/3 - 7 acres 29 guntas, totalling to 16 acres 23 guntas, corresponding to the present new Sy. No. 93. No. 113 as 4 acres 13 guntas, in Sy. No. 114 - 4 acres 21 guntas and in Sy. No. 125/3 - 7 acres 29 guntas, totalling to 16 acres 23 guntas, corresponding to the present new Sy. No. 93. The plaintiffs in the suit alleged that the rent payable for the land, which was taken on hire, was not paid. Therefore, they have filed the suit. The suit schedule also shows only Sy. No. 93 and not 93/1 of Thokatta village. These facts were considered by the learned V Assistant Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, who decided the suit and passed the decree on 15-11-1978. However, on behalf of the defendants, it was claimed that Sy. No. 93 was divided as 93/1 and 93/2. An extent of 16 acres 10 guntas falling under Sy. No. 93/1 belongs to the government. The Trial Court after considering elaborately, on the premise that the defendants did not produce the relevant documents as well as the correspondence, negatived the claim that the land in Sy. No. 93/1 is a Government land, but ultimately, concluded as follows:-"it is thus clearly seen that the plaintiff on the material placed before the Court clearly establish that late Narsimha reddy was the owner of Sy. Nos. 113 and 114 and 125/3 and that they are the claimants of the same and that the government s contention that they are owners of S. No. 93/1 cannot stand on any stretch of imagination". In terms of the above judgment, a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs where the survey numbers that are shown are only old survey numbers corresponding to New sy. No. 93 of Thokatta village without any division of Sy. No. 93. But later, it appears that the plaintiffs/decree holders got the decree amended stating that as per the judgment and pleadings the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the land in Sy. No. 93/1 corresponding to the above said three old survey numbers. But, as referred to earlier, the judgment extracted does not refer that suit schedule property is in Sy. No. 93/1. But in the judgment, the claim of the defendants that Sy. No. 93/1 belongs to the Government was negatived. As the decree holders filed the E. P. , seeking possession of the land in sy. But, as referred to earlier, the judgment extracted does not refer that suit schedule property is in Sy. No. 93/1. But in the judgment, the claim of the defendants that Sy. No. 93/1 belongs to the Government was negatived. As the decree holders filed the E. P. , seeking possession of the land in sy. No. 93/1 corresponding to the above old survey numbers, as it is not known from the impugned order as to how the change in sy. No. 93 was affected to Sy. No. 93/1. Therefore, this Court called for the records from trial Court and Report from the Chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad with reference to the above alleged amendment and from the report and the enclosed original petition and the order passed therein, it came to light that an amendment petition was filed and the same was ordered without notice to the other side. The said docket order reads as under:"heard Arguments. After perusal of record the decree was not prepared as per plaint schedule. The S. No. was drafted as 93 instead of 93/1. As it is bona fide mistake in drafting the decree, i feel there is no necessity for issuing the notice to other side. Under Sec. 152 of CPC the Court had ample powers to correct the decree if it is a bona fide mistake. As such the petition is allowed as prayed for". Basing on the amended decree, the decree holders filed the petition for delivery of the land in Sy. No. 93/1 in an extent of 16 acres 23 guntas. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, with reference to the land already in possession of the Military authorities, an extent of 12 acres 23 guntas belongs to the same parties situated in the same old survey numbers, of course, which was sub-divided and was shown as 93/2, as corresponding new survey number was acquired by the Government by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, and compensation was, in fact, paid in accordance with the Award passed therein. But, in addition to the said extent of 12 acres 23 guntas, the decree holders are now claiming another extent of 16 acres 23 guntas under the decree. But, in addition to the said extent of 12 acres 23 guntas, the decree holders are now claiming another extent of 16 acres 23 guntas under the decree. There is absolutely no evidence adduced and no consideration was made either by the original Court which passed the decree or subsequently in the e. P. , by the Court which ordered the delivery of possession of the property in question. In fact, no evidence was adduced showing that the respondents are owners of Ac. 16. 23 as claimed in the suit in the absence of any material showing that the decree holders are entitled for possession of an extent of 16 acres 23 guntas in addition to an extent of 12 acres 23 guntas, there is absolutely no merit in ordering delivery of possession. In fact, both in the suit as well as in the execution petition the Courts have laboured only to find out whether the land in Sy. No. 93/1 in an extent of 16 acres 23 guntas belongs to the government or not. On the premise that the government could not prove its title to the said land, the suit was decreed. Similarly, the executing Court has ordered delivery of possession of the property with reference to which a decree was passed. In order to find out what is the exact extent of the property to which the plaintiffs are entitled, it is necessary to decide the extent of the land owned by the plaintiffs/decree holders and what was the extent that was actually requisitioned by the authorities for the Army purpose, and what was the extent actually in their possession. In the absence of any of these aspects being considered, it would not be appropriate to pass an order of delivery of possession, which, in fact, was found not available for delivery even by the Executing Court, as per the Commissioner s report. ( 10 ) IN fact, the Executing Court appointed a Commissioner to demarcate the land bearing Old Sy. Nos. 113, 114 and 125/3, and new Sy. No. 93/1 of Thokatta village of secunderabad. The Commissioner filed his report after conducting the survey and the relevant part of the said report reads as under:-"further, I observed that new survey no. 93/2 forms part of old survey nos. 125/3 and 114 to an extent of 12 acres 23 guntas. Nos. 113, 114 and 125/3, and new Sy. No. 93/1 of Thokatta village of secunderabad. The Commissioner filed his report after conducting the survey and the relevant part of the said report reads as under:-"further, I observed that new survey no. 93/2 forms part of old survey nos. 125/3 and 114 to an extent of 12 acres 23 guntas. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners have received compensation for this piece of land of 12 acres 23 guntas, which forms part of their old survey Numbers 125/3, 114 and 113, as is seen from the proceedings of Special Deputy Collector and land Acquisition (General) in file no. L/2418/83, dated 23-9-1986. I wish to state that a copy of the above mentioned proceedings was furnished by the counsel for the Defendant No. 2 and the same is also enclosed herewith. On further examination it is found that a portion of old Survey Nos. 114 and old survey Nos. 113, 98, 100, 102, 112, 109/2, 108 and 110-are clubbed together to form 93/1. After enquiry it is revealed that except the piece of land corresponding to old Sy. No. 114, 113, the remaining land is under the occupation of various private parties. The piece of land corresponding to Old sy. No. 108,109/2 and 110 was carved out of 93/1 and renumbered as 93/3 and 110 was carved out of 93/1 and re-numbered as 93/3 and 93/4. Out of total area of 16 acres 10 guntas of Sy. No. 93/1, an area of 6 acres 33 guntas only is under Defence occupation while the remaining land of 9 acres 17 guntas representing other old Survey nos. is held by different private individuals, who have built pucca houses. I requested the Survey Department to prepare a comprehensive plain showing therein the entire Sy. No. 93 and its bifurcation into 93/1 and 93/2 and also showing all old Survey Nos. , clubbed in sy. No. 93. Accordingly, a map was prepared by Survey Department which is enclosed here with along with other papers". The said report is also enclosed with a map showing the details of the land with the old survey numbers as well as the corresponding new survey number (93) with its sub-divisions. Thereafter, the Executing Court passed orders on 26-10-1998 closing the petition. Accordingly, a map was prepared by Survey Department which is enclosed here with along with other papers". The said report is also enclosed with a map showing the details of the land with the old survey numbers as well as the corresponding new survey number (93) with its sub-divisions. Thereafter, the Executing Court passed orders on 26-10-1998 closing the petition. The said order was the subject matter of a revision in CRP No. 3402 of 1998, where this court set aside the order observing that the objections raised by the decree holders were not considered. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Executing Court for consideration of the objections of the decree holders in the light of the observations made by this Court. Thereafter, the Executing Court instead of considering the objections and passing on order, reopened the application where the Commissioner was appointed, and appointed one Sri G. Satyanarayana, retired Assistant Director, Survey and Land records to demarcate the property again. The said Commissioner expressed his inability to execute the warrant. Thereafter, one Sri A. Ranga Reddy, Retired Assistant director, Survey and Land Record, was appointed as Commissioner. The said commissioner after executing the warrant filed his report along with a site map. To the said report, the present petitioners, who are the Judgment Debtors 1 and 3, filed their objections stating that the Commissioner was to identify the land in old Sy. Nos. 113, 114 and 125/3 as well as the land in Sy. No. 93. But, the Commissionerfiled his report without identifying the old survey numbers and without disclosing how this old survey numbers converted into new Sy. No. 93. In the absence of any such co-relation with regard to the new survey number, the Commissioner s report cannot be relied upon and cannot be given effect to. The Executing Court, however, did not consider the said objections but proceeded with the report of the commissioner, who was not even examined as a witness to state how he was able to identify the new survey number without even identifying the old survey numbers. Further, perusal of the plan filed by the second commissioner shows that it is almost identical to that of the site map filed by the earlier commissioner, which contains not only new survey No. 93 with its subdivisions, but also with the corresponding old survey numbers. Further, perusal of the plan filed by the second commissioner shows that it is almost identical to that of the site map filed by the earlier commissioner, which contains not only new survey No. 93 with its subdivisions, but also with the corresponding old survey numbers. The second Commissioner s report shows that part of the land in Sy. No. 93/3 is under the occupation of private houses, though the commissioner did not give exactly the extents under various subdivision numbers of sy. No. 93. On the other hand, as per the site map filed by the earlier Commissioner, an extent of 12 acres 23 guntas is in sy. No. 93/2 co-relating to the old survey numbers 125/2 (125/3) and 114 in part. This land, admittedly, belongs to the decree holders, which was acquired and compensation was paid. An extent of 9 acres 10 guntas in Sy. No. 93/1 and 93/4 corresponding to Old Sy. Nos. 114, 112 part, 113, 108 (part), 109 (part), and 110, is under the Defence occupation; and an extent of 7 acres in Sy. No. 93/3, corresponding to old sy. No. 108 (part), 109,110 (part), 112 (part), 102 (part ). 98 (part), 99 (part) and 101 is in the occupation of private parties. But the executing Court failed to take note of even the fact that a part of the land in dispute is in possession of the private parties, but blindly ordered delivery of possession to the decree holders. ( 11 ) IN fact, as per the records, the entire extent of land in Sy. No. 93 is 28 acres 33 guntas. If the claim of the decree holders is accepted that they are entitled for more than 28 acres 33 guntas i. e. , 12 acres 23 guntas already acquired from the decree holders and now they are seeking delivery of 16 acres 23 guntas, the total of which exceeds the claim. It is also not in dispute that admittedly the respondents/decree holders did not adduce any evidence showing that they are entitled for an extent of 28 acres 33 guntas or 29 acres 06 guntas (12 acres 23 guntas in Sy. No. 93/1, plus 16 acres 23 guntas in Sy. No. 93/1 ). It is also not in dispute that admittedly the respondents/decree holders did not adduce any evidence showing that they are entitled for an extent of 28 acres 33 guntas or 29 acres 06 guntas (12 acres 23 guntas in Sy. No. 93/1, plus 16 acres 23 guntas in Sy. No. 93/1 ). This claim is also contrary to the pleadings in the plaint, where, admittedly, the plaintiffs have stated that for Defence purpose an extent of 24 acres 28 guntas was taken through the District Collector, hyderabad and the said extent is in old sy. Nos. 112, 109, 110, 113, 114, and 125/3 of Thokatta village. Out of the said extent, the plaintiffs therein have claimed 16 acres 23 guntas in Sy. Nos. 113, 114 and 125/3, corresponding to new Sy. No. 93 as belongs to late B. Venkata Narsimha Reddy, the predecessor in title. Further, nowhere in the plaint or during the course of the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs stated that they owned another extent of 12 acres 23 guntas over and above the extent claimed therein. Therefore, it is necessary forthe respondents/ decree holders to prove that they are entitled not only for 12 acres 23 guntas, but also for the additional land of 16 acres 23 guntas in sy. Nos. 113, 114 and 125/3. Further on the face of the details furnished by the plaintiffs in the suit, the claim of the decree holders appears to be not genuine, as they have given the extent of the land with reference to each old survey number in the plaint itself, and the details are as under:"sy. No. 113-Acres 4 guntas 13 sy. No. 114-Acres 4 guntas 21 sy. No. 125/3-Acres 7 guntas 29" ( 12 ) FURTHER, from the reports of the commissioners it is also clear that the land in sy. No. 93/2 also forms part of the old sy. Nos. 114 and 125/3 or 125/2 in part. Therefore, it is necessary for the respondents/ decree holders to prove that they are entitled to the extent claimed under the present E. P. , in addition to the extent of 12 acre 23 guntas already acquired under the Land Acquisition act, by producing necessary documentary evidence. It is also pertinent to note that in the land acquisition proceedings, though originally proposals were sent for acquiring an extent of 12 acres 23 guntas in Sy. It is also pertinent to note that in the land acquisition proceedings, though originally proposals were sent for acquiring an extent of 12 acres 23 guntas in Sy. No. 93/2 of thakattu village, later the said proposals were amended, and proposals were sent for an extent of 8 acres 19 guntas only, for which, in fact, a notification was issued on 15-3-1973, and notice was ordered to the respondents, and they have filed objections before the Land Acquisition Officer objecting for the acquisition of a lesser area of their holding. They contended that the land owned by them is 16 acres 23 guntas, and the entire area should be taken for acquisition. They have also stated that the entire land is already in occupation of the military authorities. It was also contended that the left over land was 4 acres 04 guntas in Sy. No. 93/2, and they will not have excess to the said land. Thereafter, an errata was issued acquiring the entire extant of 12 acres 23 guntas in sy. No. 93/2. Therefore, even in the land acquisition proceedings also what the decree holders have claimed is only 16 acres 23 guntas and not any higher extent, as is claimed in the present execution proceedings. ( 13 ) IT is appropriate to refer to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders:- in V. D. Modi v. R. A. Rehman (1 supra) the apex Court held that when the decree is made by a Court, which has no inherent jurisdiction to make it, objection as to its validity may be raised in an execution proceeding if the objection appears on the face of the record. But where the objection as to jurisdiction of the Court to pass the decree does not appear on the face of the record and requires examination of the questions raised and decided at the trial or which could have been but have not been raised the Executing court will have no jurisdiction to entertain on objection as to the validity of the decree even on the ground of absence of jurisdiction. In the facts of that case as the objection to the jurisdiction requires to be adjudicated on facts, the Apex Court held that the Executing court cannot go behind the decree. In the facts of that case as the objection to the jurisdiction requires to be adjudicated on facts, the Apex Court held that the Executing court cannot go behind the decree. In Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar and another (2 supra) in support of his contention that the Executing Court cannot behind the decree, in order to avoid the execution of the decree and if the plea of the petitioners/judgment Debtors is accepted, it would amounts to going behind the decree that was granted in favour of the decree holders. In that case, the appellant before the Apex court was the landlady, who filed the application for eviction under the provisions of the Rent Control Act on 14-2-1997. The eviction order was passed by the Rent controller on 15-5-2000. Though the tenant raised a plea that the site plain attached to the ejectment petition was not correct, but the said plea was negatived in view of his admission as to the correctness of the said plan. The tenant s appeal as well as the revision before the High Court were dismissed, and the tenant was given time till 31-8-2001 for vacating the premises. Later on an application filed by the tenant to recall the order of dismissal of the revision the said petition was allowed to the extent of granting extended time till 30-4-2002 for vacating the premises, subject to the condition that the tenant will file an affidavit giving an undertaking to vacate the premises and handover the same to the landlady on 30-4-2002. The said order was made on 5-3-2002. But the tenant did not handover he premises as per the said order and the affidavit filed by him. Therefore, the E. P. was filed. In that E. P. , again the tenant took the same plea, which he has raised as to the correctness of the premises with reference to which the order was passed. The said petition was again rejected against which a revision was filed before the High Court, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, finally the possession was delivered to the landlady, which was vacated with the aid of the police by breaking open the locks of the shops in question on 18-1 -2003. The said petition was again rejected against which a revision was filed before the High Court, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, finally the possession was delivered to the landlady, which was vacated with the aid of the police by breaking open the locks of the shops in question on 18-1 -2003. On 27-1 -2003 another application was filed by the tenant before the High Court for restitution under Sec. 144 CPC, in the revision, which was filed against the order of warrant for delivery. The said revision was came to be allowed on 25-2-2003 directing the Executing Court to consider the objections raised by the tenant, before taking steps to issue warrants of possession and during the pendency of such consideration, restoration of possession in favour of the tenant was ordered. The said order was assailed before the Apex Court. The Apex Court after considering the entire case elaborately, while setting aside the order of the High Court, held-"in such circumstances we failed to understand how this very issue can be re-adjudicated in the execution proceedings by the tenants. It is also noticed that the Executing Court has rightly observed that reopening of this issue amounts to asking the Court to go behind decree, which is inadmissible in law". ( 14 ) RELYING upon the above decisions, the learned counsel sought to contend that it is not open to the petitioners/judgment debtors to contend that the respondents/ decree holders are not entitled for delivery of possession of the land for which the decree was passed. ( 15 ) THOUGH the learned counsel relied upon the above two decisions in support of his contention, but the facts in the above two cases are totally different from the facts of the present case. In the present case, the judgment Debtors are not disputing the decree where it was declared that the respondents/decree holders are entitled for 16 acres 23 guntas of land in old Sy. Nos. 113, 114, 125/3, corresponding to new Sy. No. 93, as referred to by them in the plaint, which was not amended by incorporating any sub-divisions. In the present case, the judgment Debtors are not disputing the decree where it was declared that the respondents/decree holders are entitled for 16 acres 23 guntas of land in old Sy. Nos. 113, 114, 125/3, corresponding to new Sy. No. 93, as referred to by them in the plaint, which was not amended by incorporating any sub-divisions. The issue in the present case is whether the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for the total extent of 16 acres 23 guntas as pleaded and claimed in the plaint or the said extent claimed in the plaint, which was decreed, is in exclusion of 12 acres 23 guntas, which was acquired already, and which also forms part of the same old Sy. Nos. 113, 114, 125/3, corresponding to new Sy. No. 93/2. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary in the present proceedings that the Executing Court has to decide whether the respondents/decree holders are entitled to the decreed extent of land, in addition to 12 acres 23 guntas or the decreed extent is inclusive of the land already acquired. As this issue was not decided earlier, it has to be adjudicated in the present execution proceedings. Therefore, the absolute propositions of law referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel has no application. ( 16 ) THE Executing Court also has to consider whether the amended decree was in conformity with the judgment and the pleadings. When the plaintiff pleaded in the plaint showing the land in Sy. No. 93 without any sub-division and even in the schedule also the same Sy. No. 93 was shown without any sub-division, and when a decree was passed in terms of the said Sy. No. 93 corresponding to the old Sy. No. 113, 114 and 125/3, how such a decree could be amended without amending the plaint. In fact, in the plaint reference was made only to old Survey numbers, corresponding to new Sy. No. 93 without any sub-division. There is no evidence showing amendment of plaint but, however, in the Schedule the Survey number was corrected by showing sub-division as 93/1, which is illegal (manipulation) and cannot be taken into account. The Executing Court is expected to address this issue also, which it failed to do so. No. 93 without any sub-division. There is no evidence showing amendment of plaint but, however, in the Schedule the Survey number was corrected by showing sub-division as 93/1, which is illegal (manipulation) and cannot be taken into account. The Executing Court is expected to address this issue also, which it failed to do so. ( 17 ) UNDER the above circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law in the light of the observations and directions. The CRP is accordingly allowed. No costs.