JUDGMENT A.K. Trivedi. J.-Heard both sides. 2. Before dealing with the merits of the case, it looks pertinent to incorporate the relief so sought for by the petitioner under paragraph-1 of the petition : "That the present application is being flied on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of an appropriate writ to respondents, particularly respondent No. 4 who has ousted the petitioner from his residential premises (except from the office in which law books and file of client is locked by the petitioner, who is practicing' Advocate of this Hon'ble Court from 1986, without any order of a competent Court and without showing any order of removal of petitioner from his residence-cum-office and without giving any notice suddenly reached on 31.10.2009 at 3.00 p.m. with respondents and police force and breaking the door and shutter entered into the residential premises of petitioner. the respondents No. 5 and his criminal associate looted the all belongings of the petitioner on the other order of respondent Nos. 4 and 3 and respondent No.4 ousting the petitioner from his residential room of the upper floor and meeting Hall on the ground floor in which National Office of Desh Bhakti Chetna Parishad (a registered N.G.O) and Akhil Bhartiya Desh Bhakt Morcha. (a registered political party were running as well as all the sign Boards of above stated organization and Name Plate of advocate of petitioner were destroyed of the respondent No. 5 and his criminal associates on the order of respondent No.4 and hence this writ is directed to give a direction to the respondent No. 4 to restore the situation which was till before 3.00 p.m. dated 31.10.2009 before his arrival in the premises of petitioner". 3. The instant writ appears to be misconceived. The aforesaid finding has been recorded after going through the pleadings the supplementary affidavit reply filed on behalf of the petitioner wherefrom the description of the land over which the house of the petitioner as claimed is missing. In that event, the order cannot be executable. As the order cannot be executable therefore, the petition appears to be suffering from impropriety as well as inadaptability. 4. Petitioner has filed so many annexures but those ,are not going to supplement the plea of the petitioner as the Court on its own cannot infer beyond whatever been pleaded. In that event, the order cannot be executable. As the order cannot be executable therefore, the petition appears to be suffering from impropriety as well as inadaptability. 4. Petitioner has filed so many annexures but those ,are not going to supplement the plea of the petitioner as the Court on its own cannot infer beyond whatever been pleaded. Apart from this the Court is also not in a position to identify the land in consonance with the relief so sought for under paragraph-1 of the petition and exercise on this score has gone futile. Pleadings of the respondent by way of counter affidavit is also no going to sketch and pinpoint the location having parallel to the pleading of the petitioner. 5. It is set principle of law that when the order happens to be non executable on account of own lapses of the petitioner the said petition happens to be non-maintainable. As such petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.