ORDER Misc. Case Nos. of 2006 21.03.06 — This application has been filed by the petitioner for re¬placement of Annexure-2. Learned counsel also files the copy of the documents to be replaced as Annexure-2. Heard. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties the prayer made in the petition for replacement of Annexure-2 is allowed. Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of. W.P.(C) No.10160 of 2003 Misc. Case Nos. 12739/2003, 12741/2003 and 4846/2005 21.03.06 — This writ petition has been filed by the judgment debtor challenging the order dated 17.4.2002 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in Execution Case No. 103 of 1983/Misc. Case No.80 of 1984. Heard Mr. B. N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor and Mr. B. P. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party/decree holder. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor submits that initially the decree holder had filed an Execution Case in the year 1983 for execution of the decree passed in Arbi¬tration Misc. Case No. 104 of 1978 as per the decree, but presently, he has filed an application for amendment of the execution petition making certain exorbitant claims to the tune of crores, even though the Arbitration Misc. Case was decreed for Rs. 65,018.59 paise with interest on the profits under items 4 and 5 amounting to Rs. 4,676.16 paise @ 12% interest per annum and in total the amount comes to Rs. 69,694.75 paise. In that view of the matter in the initial execution case as against column No.7, the decree holder has mentioned categorically that “Decretal amount of Rs. 69,694.75 and cost of Rs. 1,788.13 with (interest @ 12% from date of decree till final payment)”. Now as per the present application for amendment which has been filed by the decree holder (internal page 6 of Annexure-3 to the writ petition) exorbitant claim has been made to the tune of crores, which has gone much beyond the decree sought to be executed. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the decree holder/opposite party submits that since this Court in an earlier case i.e. in Civil Revision Nos. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the decree holder/opposite party submits that since this Court in an earlier case i.e. in Civil Revision Nos. 813 and 814 of 1985 has permit¬ted both the decree holder and the judgment debtor to apply for amendment of their respective applications, the present applica¬tion for amendment under Order 21 Rule 11(2) of the C.P.C. has been filed by the decree holder making some additional claims as has been mentioned by him below the prayer of that petition and it is for the Executing Court to adjudicate whether the decree holder is entitled to execute decree for such claim and in case it is found that the claims are not in accordance with the de¬cree, the learned Court is at liberty to reject the same and the claims which will be within the purview of the decree, shall be allowed. As such keeping in view the fact that the judgment debtor’s petition for amendment has already allowed, the prayer for amendment made by the decree holder has also been rightly allowed. Now it is for the Executing Court to decide as to which items of the claim the decree holder is entitled to and accord¬ingly allow the same, rejecting other claimed items. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the petition filed by the decree holder for amendment, I am of the considered view that the decree holder has gone much beyond the scope of decree while seeking for amendment in the execution petition. As it appears from the original petition, the claim has been rightly made by the decree holder as has been mentioned by him against the column 7, of the Execution petition. As per the terms of the order, it is in case, the decree holder has already deposited the amount for the goods and the same has not been delivered to him by the judgment debtor, the decree holder shall be entitled for the amount due. The decree holder cannot go beyond the purview of the decree while making any claim. As per the terms of the order, it is in case, the decree holder has already deposited the amount for the goods and the same has not been delivered to him by the judgment debtor, the decree holder shall be entitled for the amount due. The decree holder cannot go beyond the purview of the decree while making any claim. In view of the above, the order dated 17.4.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in Execu¬tion Case No.103 of 1983 is set aside only to the extent of paragraph 5 of the impugned order whereby the petition for amend¬ment filed by the decree holder was also allowed, even though he has made some exorbitant claims beyond the decree. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. In view of above, all Misc. Cases are also stand disposed of. However, as agreed to by learned counsel for both the parties, learned Trial Court shall first decide as to whether part of the award/decree, so far as it relates to deposit of amount for 1301.4 kg of bran and Q: 1616.74 of rice gram has already been deposited by the decree holder within the time stipulated therein and in case the answer will be in affirmative then as to whether the judgment debtor has delivered the goods to the decree holder or not, as per the terms of the award. In case it is found that the amount has been deposited by the decree holder and the judgment debtor has not delivered the goods and/or either side has in any way defaulted, in complying with the terms of the award, it is only thereafter decision shall be taken with regard to execution of the award/decree and/or any part of the award/decree remained to be executed. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned executing Court on 10.04.2006 and on that date, the learned Court shall fix a date with the direction to both the parties to come ready with their respective documents for hearing of the case. Petition allowed.