Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 16.08.2011 passed in E.P.No.5 of 2011 in O.S.No.40 of 2004 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. The facts as stood uncurtained in this matter could be encapsulated thus: The Executing Court in E.P.No.5 of 2011 ordered delivery as per the decree for specific performance, rejecting the contention of the judgment debtor to the effect that after the execution of the sale deed by the Court as per the specific performance decree the judgment debtor paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to the decree holder's son-in-law Balasundaram and the matter was settled. Suppressing those facts, the E.P. for delivery is sought to be enforced. 3. As against the dismissal order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would implore and entreat by echoing the cri de coeur of his client to the effect, that brazenly and mendaciously, the decree holder after obtaining a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- through his son-in-law, refused to acknowledge the same before the Executing Court, but he thought fit to proceed with the execution, which is totally illegal and against law. 5. I would like to recollect and call up Order XXI Rule 2 of CPC. The catena of decisions emerged thereunder would unambiguously and unequivocally, pellucidly and palpably make the point clear that if any settlement is arrived at after the decree, then it should be got recorded in Court in the manner known to law. Simply at the time of execution, the judgment debtor would not be permitted to put forth the plea of settlement. As such, the Executing Court adhered to the aforesaid provision and dismissed the contention of the judgment debtor and in such a case, I could see no reason to interfere in this revision. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the decree passed in O.S.No.40 of 2004, was one for specific performance and not for obtaining delivery of possession of the suit property, however, the Executing Court ordered delivery. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the decree passed in O.S.No.40 of 2004, was one for specific performance and not for obtaining delivery of possession of the suit property, however, the Executing Court ordered delivery. It has become a common or garden principle of law, that a person who obtained the sale deed executed in his favour through the Court as per the specific performance decree, could very well approach the same Court and seek for delivery of the property concerned, as it is part and parcel of the relief contemplated in the said specific performance decree and no grievance could be expressed on that. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.