JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner/judgment debtor has challenged the order passed by executing Court i.e. the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Karsog, Distt. Mandi in Execution Petition No. 16-10/2010 dated 6.9.2011, vide which executing Court has directed the petitioner/judgment debtor to execute sale deed in favour of respondent/decreeholder out of the land comprised in khasra No. 508/8 to the extent mentioned in the decree. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that in Civil Suit No. 41/2008 filed by the respondent/decree-holder against petitioner/judgment debtor, the following judgment and decree was passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karsog dated 27.8.2009: “It is ordered that suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed to the effect that plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of agreement dated 15.2.2007 in respect of the land comprised in khata/khatauni No. 486/669 khasra No. 508, measuring 6-16- 13 bighas situated at muhal karsog/416, Tehsil Karsog, Distt. Mandi, HP to the extent of 0-1-16 bighas out of the share of defendant total measuring 0-18-15 bighas. The defendants are also directed to execute the sale deed of the suit land measuring of 0-1-16 bighas as per agreement dated 15.2.2007 on payment to him or depositing of remaining sale consideration amount in the Court within three months. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.” 3. It is also pertinent to refer to the prayer clause of the plaint, on the basis of which the said judgment and decree was passed by learned trial court which is quoted herein below:- “It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for specific performance of agreement dated 15.2.2007 may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff while directing the defendant to execute the Registered sale deed of his share to the extent of 33 x 22 feets i.e. measuring about 0-1-16 bighas in the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 486/669 Khasra No. 508 measuring 6-16-13 bighas situated in muhal Karsog/416, Tehsil Karsog, Distt. Mandi H.P. in which the defendant has got 0-18- 15 bighas and the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract i.e. to pay the balance sale amount of Rs. Mandi H.P. in which the defendant has got 0-18- 15 bighas and the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract i.e. to pay the balance sale amount of Rs. 25000/- to the defendant and it is the defendant who has failed to perform his part of contract i.e. the defendant has failed to execute the sale deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff in stipulated period i.e. upto 15.8.2007 and a decree to this effect may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant together with cost of the suit and in spite of it the double amount to the tune of Rs. 1,42,000/- as agreed may also be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and any other relief to which the plaintiff be found entitled to in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for which the plaintiff shall ever pray.” 4. It is not a disputed fact that the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court has attained finality. 5. In the execution petition filed by respondent/decree-holder for execution of the judgment and decree passed in his favour by learned trial court, executing court passed the following order:- “I have heard ld. Counsels for the parties. Ld. Counsel for the D.H. argues that respondent/J.D. has tried to frustrate the decree passed in his favour by selling a portion of land to Bihar Lal which was agreed to be sold to D.H. To the contrary, ld. Counsel for the J.D. argues that J.D. is ready and willing to execute sale deed as per decree but D.H. cannot demand specific property as he had purchased the land from the joint land. The trial Court has specifically ordered that J.D. shall execute the Sale deed to the extent of 0-1-16 bighas as per agreement dated 15.2.2007. Now this agreement clearly reads that J.D. had agreed to sell 33x22 feet land adjoining to Karsog-Gharatha Road towards upper side for Rs.96,000/-. Now the contents of this agreement do not leave any doubt that D.H. is entitled to get sale deed executed in his favour of the land which is adjoining to Gharatha-Karsog road. Now this agreement clearly reads that J.D. had agreed to sell 33x22 feet land adjoining to Karsog-Gharatha Road towards upper side for Rs.96,000/-. Now the contents of this agreement do not leave any doubt that D.H. is entitled to get sale deed executed in his favour of the land which is adjoining to Gharatha-Karsog road. Now it is emerging from the oral as well as written contentions of the parties before the court that J.D. has got only one Khasra number adjoining to the road i.e. 508/8. Now J.D. is duty bound to execute the sale deed in favour of D.H. out of that land and any sale made by him in violation of the directions given in the decree cannot sustain and accordingly vendee shall be bound by the decree in view of Section 52 of T.P. Act. Accordingly, it is direct5ed that J.D. shall execute the sale deed in favour of the D.H. out of the land comprised in Khasra No. 508/8 to the extent of mentioned in the decree. The vendee Bihari Lal shall join the J.D. in completing the sale deed in favour of the D.H. within 45 days. Let file be fixed for consideration on 21.10.2011.” 6. Mr. G.C. Gupta learned Senior Counsel appearing of the petitioner/judgment debtor argued that the impugned order passed by executing Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as executing Court while passing the order under challenge has failed to follow the well settled principle of law that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Mr. Gupta argued that the decree passed by learned trial court entitles plaintiff for specific performance of agreement dated 15.2.2007 in respect of land comprised in khata khatauni No. 486/669 khasra No. 508, measuring 6.6.13 bighas situated at Muhal Carsog/416, Tehsil Karsog, Distt. Mandi to the extent of 0-1-16 bighas out of the share of the defendant/judgment debtor and rather than executing the said decree, executing Court has directed the decree-holder to execute sale deed out of land comprised in khasra No. 508/8 to the extent mentioned in the decree. This direction as per Mr. Gupta passed by executing Court was beyond the decree. According to Mr. Gupta the judgment-debtor was still ready and willing to execute sale deed as per decree but decree-holder cannot demand specific property as he had purchased land out of the joint holdings. Accordingly, Mr. This direction as per Mr. Gupta passed by executing Court was beyond the decree. According to Mr. Gupta the judgment-debtor was still ready and willing to execute sale deed as per decree but decree-holder cannot demand specific property as he had purchased land out of the joint holdings. Accordingly, Mr. Gupta has prayed that the impugned order passed by executing Court be set aside. 7. Mr. H.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent argued that there is no infirmity or perversity with the order passed by executing Court because after the passing of the judgment and decree by learned trial court, the judgment debtor in fact had sold portion of suit land in favour of one Bihari Lal, therefore, executing Court had rightly directed the decree holder to execute sale deed out of land comprised in khasra No. 508/8 to the extent mentioned in the decree. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as plaint, agreement to sell, judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and the impugned order. 9. In my considered view, there is error and perversity in the order which has been passed by executing Court whereby it has issued directions to the judgment debtor to execute the sale deed in favour of decree holder out of land comprised in khasra No. 508/8 to the extent mentioned in the decree. While passing the said order, executing Court has erred in not appreciating that as executing Court cannot go behind the decree, therefore, it was not having any jurisdiction to direct the judgment debtor to execute a sale deed in favour of decree holder out of land comprised in khasra No. 508/8 as it was not so contemplated either in the agreement to sell or in the plaint or in the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karsog dated 27.8.2009. The judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karsog held plaintiff entitled for specific performance of agreement dated 15.2.2007 in respect of land comprised in khasra No. 508 to the extent of 0-1-16 bighas. There is no decree in favour of decree holder for specific performance of agreement dated 15.2.2007 out of khasra No. 508/8. Division), Karsog held plaintiff entitled for specific performance of agreement dated 15.2.2007 in respect of land comprised in khasra No. 508 to the extent of 0-1-16 bighas. There is no decree in favour of decree holder for specific performance of agreement dated 15.2.2007 out of khasra No. 508/8. This very important aspect of the matter has lost sight of the matter by executing court while passing the impugned order. Therefore, in view of the above discussion this revision petition is allowed and order dated 6.9.2011 passed by executing Court i.e. Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Karsog, in case No. 16-10/2010 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the executing Court to pass appropriate order in the execution petition filed by the decree holder strictly taking into consideration the judgment and decree which has been passed in favour of the decree holder. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to put in appearance before executing Court on 26.12.2016. Registry is directed to forthwith send back the records of the case to the executing Court.