JUDGMENT : SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J. Intervener review petitioner Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. has prayed for review and/or recall of the order dated 8th November, 2017 passed by this Court in C.O No. 3233 of 2017 inter alia, on the grounds that execution of decree and or dispossession of the review petitioner, cannot be had, as an application under the Order XXI Rule 101 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Misc. Case No. 2982 of 2017 pending before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta refers to as the Executing Court would cause manifest injustice and grave miscarriage of justice to the review petitioner. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that Title Suit No. 5394 of 2008 has been decreed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta which decree was set aside on remand by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in appeal therefrom, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on appeal has been pleased to set aside the judgment and order of remand passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court has been affirmed but in none of the proceeding the independent right of the review petitioner has been decided and that the review petitioner has a substantive right to be adjudicated in the said Misc. Case No. 2982 of 2017. 3. I have observed in the Order dated 8th November, 2017 under review that the question before this Court was whether Mc. Donald is a third party stranger in possession of the decreetal property. I have answered the said question in the negative by a reasoned order bearing in mind the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8361 of 2016. My finding in the said order is not at all based on the surmise. I am unable to accept the contention by the review petitioner that this Court was not authorized to act as an original forum for decision on such issue, particularly when such Misc. Case No. 2982 of 2017 is pending inasmuch as my finding recorded is based on the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the judgment debtor/opposite parties are running a restaurant business in the name and style of Mc. Case No. 2982 of 2017 is pending inasmuch as my finding recorded is based on the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the judgment debtor/opposite parties are running a restaurant business in the name and style of Mc. Donald as would also be depicted from the report of the bailiff and the endorsement of undertaking to vacate the premises within 15 days given by the Area Manager-in-Charge of Mc. Donald on behalf of Dipak Kumar Singh the judgment debtor/opposite party. This Court cannot sit on its own order under the garb of review of the same so as to find differently that this petitioner did not employ or authorized any representative in the name of Ramnath Singh. 4. Pursuant to the order under review dated 8th November, 2017, the following Orders have been passed in the Misc. Case No. 2982 of 2017 pending in the Executing Court. (a) Order No. 61 dated 13th November, 2017, whereby the learned Registrar, City Civil Court at Calcutta has fixed 16th November, 2017 for issuance of writ of possession under Order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure fixing the very next day viz. 17th November, 2017 for E/R. (b) Order No. 62 dated 14th November, 2017 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta rejecting the review petitioner's application for stay of the execution proceedings. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the review petitioner that the said orders have a direct fall out of the order under review and claimed for stay of the order under review and further to stay the execution proceedings till the disposal of the petition. 6. It would appear from the Order dated 8th November, 2017 that I have discussed with regard to the chronological event leading to the revisional application in detail and it would also appear that the present review petitioner as the intervener was represented by Mr. Rupak Ghosh and Mr. Rajesh Upadhyay, learned Advocates for them and this Court directed the Executing Court to execute the decree having been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8361 of 2016 by issuing writ of possession afresh with effective police help and to deliver the possession of the decreetal premises unto the decree holder under direct supervision of learned Registrar, City Civil Court at Calcutta with further direction to report compliance by 29.11.2017 7. The compliance report has been submitted in compliance of the said order. In the order I have already discussed an observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No. 8361 of 2016 wherein it has been observed that the judgment debtor was running the Mc. Donald Family Restaurant from the tenanted premises. 8. Much have been argued on behalf of the review petitioner referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal reported in (1997) 3 SCC 694 , Anwarbi v. Pramod D.A Joshi reported in (2000) 10 SCC 405 , Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust reported in (1998) 3 SCC 723 : AIR 1998 SC 1754 , Ashan Devi v. Phulwasi Devi reported in (2003) 12 SCC 219 : AIR 2004 SC 511 , Shreenath v. Rajesh reported in (1998) 4 SCC 543 : AIR 1998 SC 1827 , N.S.S Narayana Sarma v. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 662 : AIR 2002 SC 251 , Munusamy v. Vengadachalam reported in 2011 1 LW 647 . 9. I fully rely on the proposition laid but this fact cannot be lost sight of as pointed out by the learned counsel for the decree holder objector that the application for review cannot be maintained in view of the fact that the said Misc. Case No. 2747 of 2017 has been dismissed for default by Order No. 66 dated 05.12.2017 passed therein by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta being the Executing Court and no such case is pending before it. 10. It is settled position of law that it is no longer res integra that an Executing Court can neither go behind the decree nor sit in appeal over the same or pass any order jeopardizing the rights of the parties thereunder. The decree which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court has to be executed which is a decree for eviction against the judgment debtor who is running a business in the name and style of Mc. Donald Family Restaurant being a chain of restaurant with the franchise of the review petitioner who had the agreement with the judgment debtor for providing him the franchise to run a restaurant in the name of Mc. Donald by the judgment debtor in his tenanted premises i.e. the decreetal premises. Donald Family Restaurant being a chain of restaurant with the franchise of the review petitioner who had the agreement with the judgment debtor for providing him the franchise to run a restaurant in the name of Mc. Donald by the judgment debtor in his tenanted premises i.e. the decreetal premises. Obviously the review petitioner was not the tenant in respect of the suit premises/decreetal premises under any agreement with the decree holder. The decree which has attained finality, no party has the right to challenge it on the ground that he was a tenant or having a sub-tenancy during the execution proceedings. Such a plea of jural relationship having been sought to be raised in execution cannot be sustained and no review of the order dated 8th November, 2017 passed in C.O No. 3233 of 2017 can be made or otherwise recalled inasmuch as Misc. Case filed by the review petitioner before the Executing Court has already been dismissed. 11. Thus, the CAN application being CAN No. 10703 of 2017 filed by the review petitioner Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. is hereby dismissed with costs. 12. In the result, judgment debtor is directed to put the decree holder in peaceful possession of the decreetal premises within 15 days from the date hereof otherwise the Executing Court shall put the decree holder in possess of the decreetal premises even by locking the restaurant with all fittings and fixtures as per the report of the learned Registrar and to hand over the key to the decree holder under a zimmanama. 13. In the context above, civil revision being C.O No. 3725 of 2017 with C.O No. 3233 of 2017 and all connected application being CAN No. 11132 of 2017 with CAN No. 11424 of 2017 with CAN No. 11425 of 2017 are disposed of. 14. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. Later 15. On the prayer of Mr. Ravi Kapur, learned advocate for the petitioners in CO 3725 of 2017, let the stay of operation of this order be continued for a period of 15 days and after 15 days the judgment debtor must comply with this order by handing over possession to the decree holder.