JUDGMENT : 1. In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 2. The applicant who is original disputant in Cooperative Case No. 197 of 1990 is aggrieved by the order passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 139 of 2016 whereby said appeal has been allowed and the order passed by the Executing Court below Exhibit 48 has been set aside. 3. The facts relevant for adjudicating the present civil revision application are thus According to the applicant, he had purchased plot no. 39 by registered sale dated 7.10.1986 from the non-applicant no. 1 Society. This plot was admeasuring 1500 square feet and it was purchased for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. Non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 had also purchased separate plots on the same day from the non-applicant no. 1 Society. According to the applicant, the President and Secretary of the Society made various changes in the layout due to which the applicant was likely to receive lesser area than the area purchased by him. On that basis, he filed the aforesaid dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The relief claimed in the aforesaid dispute was that non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 be evicted from plot no. 39 and possession of the same be given to the applicant. A declaration was also sought that documents, if any, executed by non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 with regard to said plot be declared as null and void. 4. The Cooperative Court after considering the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that by virtue of the revised layout map that was sanctioned by the Nagpur Improvement Trust, the respective parties were entitled for possession of their respective plots as per said map. After recording the finding that the applicant was not seeking removal of encroachment, the Cooperative Court by order dated 10.9.2009 held that the applicant was entitled for possession of plot no. 39 as per the revised layout map. The Society was directed to execute the correction deed and also refund the adjusted amount to the applicant. The applicant challenged the aforesaid award before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Cooperative Court and dismissed the appeal. 5. In terms of the aforesaid award, the applicant instituted execution proceedings in the Civil Court. The Society was directed to execute the correction deed and also refund the adjusted amount to the applicant. The applicant challenged the aforesaid award before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Cooperative Court and dismissed the appeal. 5. In terms of the aforesaid award, the applicant instituted execution proceedings in the Civil Court. The objection raised by the non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 to the said proceedings was rejected on 11.2.2015. Subsequently, the applicant filed draft Correction deed under provisions of Order XXI, Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”). This application was opposed by non-applicant nos. 2 to 4. The Executing Court by its order dated 21.4.2016 rejected the said objection. Being aggrieved, non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 filed an appeal challenging the aforesaid order. By the impugned order, the aforesaid appeal has been allowed and the order passed by the Executing Court below Exhibit 48 has been set aside. 6. Shri S. A. Kalbande, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Appellate Court travelled beyond the scope of the appeal that was filed under provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1 (i) of the Code and proceeded to observe that the award passed by the Cooperative Court was vague in nature. According to him, the Cooperative Court after considering the entire evidence had held in favour of the applicant and, therefore, the Appellate Court could not have held that said award could not be executed. The applicant had filed a draft Correction Deed under provisions of Order XXI, Rule 34 of the Code and the Executing Court had rightly rejected the objection raised by non-applicant nos. 2 to 4. According to him, the appeal ought to have been decided by keeping the provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code in mind. For said purpose, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Rasika w/o Krishnadas Tulsidas & ors v. Mount Mary Vaikunta Coop. Housing Society Limited & ors reported in 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 420 . It was then submitted that the earlier objection raised by nonapplicant nos. 2 to 4 below Exhibit 21 had been rejected and, therefore, the subsequent objection based on the same lines could not have been agitated. Housing Society Limited & ors reported in 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 420 . It was then submitted that the earlier objection raised by nonapplicant nos. 2 to 4 below Exhibit 21 had been rejected and, therefore, the subsequent objection based on the same lines could not have been agitated. In this regard he placed reliance on Barkat Ali & anr v. Badrinarin (Dead) by LRs reported in (2008) 4 SCC 615 . He, therefore, submitted that decree as passed was liable to be executed and he placed reliance on the decision in Satyawati v. Rajinder Singh & anr reported in (2013) 9 SCC 491 . 7. Shri A. S. Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate for non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 supported the impugned order. According to him, the Cooperative Court had clearly recorded a finding that there was no encroachment committed by the non-applicant nos. 2 to 4. He submitted that this finding was confirmed by the Appellate Court and therefore there was no question of placing the applicant in possession of any property. He submitted that an injunction sought by the applicant seeking to restrain the non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 from making any construction was refused by the Cooperative Court. According to him, the applicant was seeking possession by filing the execution proceedings and the Appellate Court rightly set aside the order passed by the Executing Court. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal was rightly decided within the permissible scope and therefore, there was no merit in the revision application. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed on record. Before considering the challenge as raised, it would be necessary to refer to the Award passed by the Cooperative Court in the proceedings filed by the applicant. The Cooperative Court in paragraph 11 of its Award has noted that the grievance with regard to encroachment having been committed by non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 was withdrawn by the disputant during the course of arguments and it was admitted that there was no encroachment by non-applicant nos. 2 to 4. Thereafter reference is made to the clause in the sale deed by which it was made clear that the layout map was subject to changes as per the sanction and approval of the Nagpur Improvement Trust. Thereafter on the basis of the revised layout map, it is observed that plot no. 2 to 4. Thereafter reference is made to the clause in the sale deed by which it was made clear that the layout map was subject to changes as per the sanction and approval of the Nagpur Improvement Trust. Thereafter on the basis of the revised layout map, it is observed that plot no. 39 was shown to exist. In paragraph 15 of the Award it is held that the Correction Deeds were executed by the Society in favour of non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 on the basis of revised layout map. Ultimately, in paragraph 17 of the Award, it was held that the disputant was entitled for possession of plot no. 39 as shown in revised layout map and the Society was bound to execute necessary correction deed in favour of the disputant. The Society was also directed to refund the adjusted amount as per the area of plot no. 39 to the applicant. The Appellate Court confirmed these findings in the appeal filed by the applicant. It noted that the applicant was entitled only to the area of plot as per the sanctioned map and he was not entitled to seek the relief of eviction of non-applicant nos. 2 to 4. The appellate Court, therefore, confirmed the aforesaid Award. 9. In the execution proceedings the applicant filed draft correction deed in terms of provisions of Order XXI, Rule 34 of the Code. The same was objected to by non-applicant nos. 2 to 4. The Executing Court by order passed below Exhibit 48 rejected these objections. The scope of an appeal challenging the order passed under Order XXI, Rule 34 of the Code has been explained in the decision in R. Tulsidas (supra). It has been held that the scope of such appeal would be restricted to the order relating to the objection to the draft sale deed. The Appellate Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Order XLIII, Rule 1(i) of the Code cannot travel beyond the purview of its appellate jurisdiction. If the order passed by the Appellate Court is perused, point no. 1 has been framed thus:- “Whether the appellant has proved that the respondent no. 1 society illegally changed the layout plan and illegally allotted portion of plot to the R. Nos. If the order passed by the Appellate Court is perused, point no. 1 has been framed thus:- “Whether the appellant has proved that the respondent no. 1 society illegally changed the layout plan and illegally allotted portion of plot to the R. Nos. 3 to 6 ?” Thereafter the Appellate Court proceeded to observe that if the decree was vague, the Executing Court could refer to the pleadings of the parties; evidence on record and reasons in the judgment. It thus observed that the main dispute was as regards identification of the plots and their boundaries and the decree was vague in this respect. It is on that basis that the order of the Executing Court came to be set aside. 10. From the order passed by the Appellate Court, it can be seen that the Appellate Court has entered into the merits of the findings recorded by the Cooperative Court and has concluded that the Award as passed was vague as the dispute related to the identification of plots and boundaries. However, if the Award passed by the Cooperative Court is perused, it is held in clear terms that the applicant is entitled for possession of plot no. 39 as per the revised layout map that is approved by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. A direction is also issued against the Society to execute necessary correction deed of plot no. 39 in terms of the revised layout map. It is on the basis of this Award that the draft correction deed came to be submitted by the applicant. The executing court having rejected the objection raised by non-applicant nos. 2 to 4, the Appellate Court could have examined the challenge to said order in the light of the Award passed by the Cooperative Court. On reading the entire Award, it cannot be said that the directions issued while partly allowing the dispute were vague in nature. After considering the entire evidence on record and after holding that there was no question of removal of any encroachment, the relief granted was as regards entitlement of possession of the applicant to plot no. 39 as per the revised layout map. After considering the entire evidence on record and after holding that there was no question of removal of any encroachment, the relief granted was as regards entitlement of possession of the applicant to plot no. 39 as per the revised layout map. The Appellate Court, therefore, committed an error by not considering the challenge to the order passed by the executing court in the light of provisions of Order XXI, Rule 34 of the Code along with the Award that was sought to be executed. As the Appellate Court has proceeded by considering as to whether the said Award can be executed after removing non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 from possession which aspect was not required to be gone into, I find that the appeal deserves to be reconsidered by the Appellate Court in the light of the scope of provisions of Order XXI, Rule 34 of the Code. 11. Insofar as the question of res judicata is concerned, it is to be noted that insofar as the application filed below Exhibit 21 is concerned, non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 have prayed for the execution proceedings to be dismissed. This objection came to be rejected on 11.2.2015. Even if the execution proceedings continue against non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 what is to be executed is the Award passed by the Cooperative Court. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 were precluded from raising objection to the draft correction deed as per Exhibit 48. Ultimately, what is to be executed is the award passed by the Cooperative Court and objection, if any, has to be considered in that light. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, following order is passed : (1) Order passed by the Appellate Court dated 19.10.2016 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 139 of 2016 is quashed and set aside. The proceedings are restored to file of the Appellate Court for their reconsideration in accordance with the observations made and the law referred to hereinabove. (2) The Appellate Court shall decide the appeal on its own merits after taking into consideration the Award passed by the Cooperative Court. (3) The parties shall appear before the Appellate Court on 3.4.2017. The appeal be decided expeditiously by the Appellate Court. (4) Revision is partly allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.