Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.— This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.2.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Musafirkhana, District Sultanpur in Execution Case no. 22 of 1978 (Mata Prasad and others vs. Zila Parishad and others), against which, a revision was preferred, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.2.2012. The facts, in short, giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioners' ancestors filed a suit which was dismissed on 30.8.1977. Against the said judgment and decree dated 30.8.1977, the plaintiffs filed a Civil Appeal No. 350 of 1977, which was allowed vide order dated 1.6.1978 and a direction was issued to demolish the construction in suit within three months and to deliver the possession of the land in suit to the plaintiffs (now petitioners). Thereafter, execution application was moved by the ancestors of the petitioners as well as opposite part nos. 3 to 18. The execution court called the report of the Commission and the Commission submitted the report in compliance of the court's order alongwith the site plan. Against the said Commission's report, an objection was filed by the Zila Parishad, which was rejected. In the second appeal preferred against the order dated 1.6.1978, an interim order was granted on 14.12.1979, but later on the said order was modified on 8.5.1980 by means of which, the appellants were restrained from making any fresh constructions or from otherwise altering the nature of the property in dispute. The executing court passed an order on 8.10.1980, allowing the execution application in part and handed over the possession over the vacant land and also auctioned the rest constructed property. In the meantime, second appeal was dismissed in default on 2.2.2007. Thereafter, the judgment and decree was put into execution. The executing court allowed the substitution application filed by the heirs and after substitution, issued a writ to Amin on 16.9.2011 and in compliance of order of the executing court, he submitted his report on 19.10.2011. The petitioners were put into possession with the aid of police force on 3.2.2012. The opposite parties no. 3 and 4 thereafter moved an application under Section 144 CPC with the prayer that the excess area of which possession has been given to the petitioners may be corrected and the opposite parties no. The petitioners were put into possession with the aid of police force on 3.2.2012. The opposite parties no. 3 and 4 thereafter moved an application under Section 144 CPC with the prayer that the excess area of which possession has been given to the petitioners may be corrected and the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 may be put back in that land as the said land was not the subject matter of suit, neither the decree could be executed in respect of the said land. The suit was only in respect of three shops, which was subject matter of suit, therefore, the decree can be executed to the extent of three shops. On the aforesaid allegation, when the application under Section 144 CPC was moved, the trial court proceeded to issue notice to the decree holders, namely, Shiv Poojan, Ram Poojan, Arvind, and his counsel, inviting objections, fixing 10.2.2012. Against the said order, a revision was preferred, which has been dismissed vide order 24.2.2012. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application moved under Section 144 CPC is not maintainable and even if the petitioners have been put into excess land during the execution proceedings, the proper procedure is provided under Order XXI, Rule 97 of CPC, as they are stranger to the decree and as such the application moved under Section 144 CPC is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submitted that objections have been invited and the date has been fixed in the case. The petitioners can put forward their argument and objection before the trial court where the application has been moved. The petitioners have filed suit in respect of three shops only and the decree could have been executed in respect of those three shops. Any execution of decree beyond three shops will not entitle them to retain the possession and under the garb of execution, the petitioners cannot take undue advantage of continuing with the possession of excess land. The claim of the petitioners is wholly baseless and they cannot contest beyond their claim setup in the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is clear form the record that the ancestors of the petitioners filed a suit for possession which was dismissed and an appeal was preferred which was allowed. The claim of the petitioners is wholly baseless and they cannot contest beyond their claim setup in the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is clear form the record that the ancestors of the petitioners filed a suit for possession which was dismissed and an appeal was preferred which was allowed. After the appeal was decreed, a second appeal was preferred before this court, in which an interim order was passed. Subsequently, the said interim order was modified on 8.5.1980 and after modification of the said order, the second appeal was dismissed in default on 2.2.2007. After dismissal of the second appeal, decree was put into execution. While executing the decree, Amin gave the possession of certain excess land to the petitioners, to which they were not entitled. The Commission also submitted a wrong report, on the basis of which, the possession was given. The claim in the suit was setup in respect of three shops. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioners are entitled for possession of three shops only and they cannot travel beyond the decree which has been granted to the petitioners. Any claim by the petitioners in respect of excess land would not be tenable. The Court instead of making any observation on merit, confines itself to the aspect that the petitioners may appear before the trial court and file objections. The application moved under Section 144 CPC in such circumstances, where a party has no claim to the land in dispute would certainly be maintainable, as the remedy provided under Section 144 is in respect of a person, who has been ousted from his possession illegally and his possession is to be restored. The petitioners, therefore, are directed to appear before the trial court and file their objections, as contemplated under law. Any observation made by this Court will not be binding upon the trial court. The petitioners possession in respect of three shops, as claimed in the suit will continue, till the disposal of the objections in accordance with law, by the trial court and if any excess land has been occupied by the petitioners, the trial court would be at liberty to proceed and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. _