JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —This review petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ''CPC'') takes exception to the order passed by the learned Executing Court whereby the petition filed by the petitioner-decree-holder under order 22 Rule 32 CPC has been ordered to be dismissed. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 01.03.2007. However, the said judgment and decree was reversed in an appeal filed by the petitioner and a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from causing any kind of interference on the boundary of the suit land comprised in khewat khatauni No. 68 min/68, khasra No. 94 and 101 kitta 2 measuring 0-40-79 hectares situated in village Narola, HB No. 510, which was adjoining to the boundary of khasra No. 103 belonging to the defendants /respondents came to be passed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 26.03.2008. 3. Armed with the decree, the petitioner filed an execution petition invoking the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32, wrongly mentioned as Order 22 Rule 32 by the Executing Court, complaining that the JDs/respondents had disobeyed the decree by removing and cutting mango trees and other trees as also dismantling the Danga (wall) and taken away its stones. 4. Jds/Respondents contested the application by denying the allegations. 5. The learned trial Court on 17.05.2010 framed the following issues:- 1. Whether respondents have disobeyed the decree dated 26.03.2008, as alleged OPA? 2. Whether petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR 3. Relief. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that only tatima Ext.PW3/A was placed by the decree holder on the record but no demarcation report was placed before the Court so as to enable it to conclude that the judgment debtors, in fact, had disobeyed the decree. Even though the decree holder stated that the JDs had removed the wall by removing stones whereas there is no mention of any stone wall in the judgment and decree sought to be executed. Even though the decree holder stated that the JDs had removed the wall by removing stones whereas there is no mention of any stone wall in the judgment and decree sought to be executed. Thus, the Executing Court has rightly concluded that the wall was constructed/raised by the JDs, since they were having their land on the lower side of khasra No. 103 whereas the land of the decree holder is on the upper side and was existing upon khasra Nos. 94 & 101. 7. Above all, it would be noticed that the decree holder who had complete knowledge of facts did not bother to step into the witness box and therefore adverse inference against him drawn under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act and therefore, the learned Executing Court left with no other option but to draw an adverse inference against him because it is more than settled that where as party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be crossexamined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set-up by him is not correct. (Refer:- Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao & Anr. , (1999) 3 SCC 573 , Janki vs. Indus Ind Bank , (2005) 2 SCC 217 , Man Kaur through Lrs. vs. Hartar Singh Sangha , (2010) 10 SCC 512 ) . 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that the learned Courts below while dismissing the aforesaid application acted with material irregularity or illegality so as to call for interference by this Court.Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.