Judgment 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 26.09.2012 passed in E.A.No.222 of 2012 in E.P.No.92 of 2011 in O.S.No.350 of 1979, by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A recapitulation and re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: O.S.No.350 of 1979 was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff herein for redemption. Whereupon in the suit, a preliminary decree was passed and thereafter, a final decree was also passed as against which, the Second Appeal was filed before this Court, which was dismissed for default. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/8th defendant, steps are being taken to rehear the Second Appeal on merits. While so, the same revision petitioner filed E.A.No.222 of 2012 before the Executing Court seeking the following relief: "For the reason stated in the accompanying affidavit it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a commissioner, for the following matters and render justice. Matters sought to be ascertained 1. To calculate the value of improvements from 1996 to till date over the suit property. 2. To calculate the expenses regarding the electric connection to the suit property. 3. Such other matters which the petitioner/8th respondent request at the spot." (Extracted as such) However, the lower Court dismissed it only on the ground that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the scope of the decree. 4. Being aggrieved by the dissatisfied with the order passed by the lower Court, the Civil Revision Petition is focussed on various grounds. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the endeavour of the revision petitioner is that the money spent for making improvements in the property has to be taken note of by the Executing Court. 6. Whereas the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the Executing Court. 7. 6. Whereas the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the Executing Court. 7. At this juncture, I would like to point out that since the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has made a categorical submission that the petitioner filed an application to get the delay condoned in filing the application to restore the Second Appeal was allowed and that now steps are being taken to get the Second Appeal posted for rehearing on merits, I am of the considered view that whatever remedy the revision petitioner has to get, is only before the Bench which is seized of the Second Appeal and so far as the Executing Court is concerned, it cannot go beyond the decree. Depending upon the ultimate outcome of the Second Appeal only, the consequences will follow. 8. With these observations, I would like to close this Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is closed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.