Judgment By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.02.2005, passed by executing court (Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rudraprayag), in Execution Case No. 02 of 2004; Pal Das Vs. Baisakhu Lal. 2. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. No-one has turned up on behalf of respondent No. 2/decree holder even after there being sufficient service. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Pai Das/plaintiff instituted Suit No. 25 of 2001, before the trial court (Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rudraprayag), for prohibitiory injunction, restraining the defendant (present petitioner) from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over Plot No. 4577 measuring 0.023, Plot No. 4578 measuring 0.048, and Plot No. 4579 measuring 0.006, situated in village Kudi Aduli, sub Tehsil Jakholi. When the defendant did not turn up in the suit, the trial court proceeded ex parte and passed the ex parte decree dated 10.09.2002, in the Suit No. 25 of 2001, restraining the defendant from interfering in peaceful possession of the land in suit mentioned above. 4. It appears that the plaintiff/decree holder Pai Das (present respondent No. 2) filed Execution Case No. 02 of 1004 before Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rudraprayag for execution of the decree, and thereafter moved an application on 12.08.2004 stating that since the judgment debtor (defendant/present petitioner) has meanwhile occupied the land in suit, the possession be got delivered to the decree holder. Copy of the order sheet, which is annexure 5 to this writ petition, shows that the executing court issued writ of possession on 17.02.2005, directing the Central Nazir to deliver the possession of land of the decree holder, with the assistance of the Area Point. 5. It is settled principle of law that an executing court cannot go beyond parameters of the decree. The decree was simply for a prohibitory injunction. If the judgment debtor had taken possession of the land after the decree was passed, it was a new cause of action to the plaintiff who could have instituted suit for possession. In execution of a decree for prohibitory injunction, the trial court has committed a grave error of law in issuing writ of possession to deliver the possession of land to the plaintiff/decree holder, who had filed a suit and obtained decree simply for prohibitory injunction. 6. In execution of a decree for prohibitory injunction, the trial court has committed a grave error of law in issuing writ of possession to deliver the possession of land to the plaintiff/decree holder, who had filed a suit and obtained decree simply for prohibitory injunction. 6. For the reasons as discussed above, the impugned order passed by the executing court to issue writ of possession is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.02.2005 passed by executing court (Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rudraprayag, is hereby quashed.