ORDER 1. Since none appeared for the respondents earlier also, this Court had issued SPC to the respondents for a date to be fixed by office. In spite of issuing SPC on 6.7.2018, there is no representation on part of the respondents. Since the interim order is operating since 7.3.2012, the matter is being heard finally. 2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality, propriety and validity of the order dated 2.2.2012 passed in Case No. 07/2008 (MJC) by 2nd Additional District Judge, Gwalior, whereby the learned Executing Court has modified the decree by itself on the ground that looking to the facts and circumstances, partition of house No. 56 is not possible. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the respondents No. 1 to 3. The learned trial Court passed the judgment and decree dated 29.1.2008 in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. The decree reads as under : ^^¼v½ oknh oknxzLr Hkou Øekad 31 ,oa 56 fLFkr okMZ Øekad 14] xqnM+h ekSgYyk yksgke.Mh Xokfy;j esa vius 1@4 Hkkx dk caVokjk djkdj mls ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ¼c½ Áfroknhx.k ds fo:) oknh ds i{k esa ;g LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkrh gS fd Áfroknhx.k oknh ds 1@4 fgLls okyh Hkwfe dks u rks fdlh dks foØ; djs vkSj u gh fdlh vU; dks varfjr djsaA ¼l½ bl Ádj.k dk Áfroknhx.k viuk ,oa oknh dk oknO;; ogu djsxsaA ¼n½ vfHkHkk"kd 'kqYd rkfydk vuqlkj vkadh tk,saA 15- mijksDrkuqlkj t;i= dh jpuk dh tk,A^^ 4. The judgment and decree dated 29.1.2008 became final since no one challenged the same in appeal. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application under Order 20 rule 18 of Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent No.1 filed the objection to the aforesaid application. Learned trial Court dismissed the objection on 12.10.2009. Being aggrieved by this, the respondent No.1 filed the writ petition No. 5163/2009 before this Court and vide order dated 1.12.2010, the writ petition was disposed of with following directions : “In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of with a direction that the Executing Court would ensure that the decree is executed in respect of the parties described in the decree itself because the executing Court has no power to go beyond the decree” 6. Thereafter, learned Executing Court appointed the Court Commissioner and the learned trial Court directed the Court Commissioner to demarcate the plaintiff's share in the disputed property. The Commissioner inspected the spot and identified the disputed houses No. 56 and 31. Subsequently, the report was filed. The petitioner and the respondents filed objections and reply. Learned trial Court decided the same and modified the decree on its own without having jurisdiction to do so. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 2.2.2012 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It was further contended that Executing Court has erred in going behind the decree, who has no jurisdiction to amend it. In fact, the decree is required to be executed as it is. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Buddhi Bai (Smt.) and another v. M/s. Kriti Industries (India) Ltd. and another [ 2009(III) MPWN 106 ], in which the Division Bench of this Court has held as under : “10. It is a settled principal of law that executing Court cannot go behind the decree and has to execute the same as it is. In other words, the executing Court has no jurisdiction to amend the decree at the instance of any party to a decree nor has a jurisdiction to confer any additional right in favour of any party and nor has jurisdiction to take away right if granted in the decree. The executing Court is, therefore, expected to ensure that while interpreting the decree it should not result in violation of these settled principles else it would amount to amending the decree. 11. The expression “Joint and several” used in award enables the decree holder to proceed against one or both judgment debtor at his discretion for realÁation of entire decretal sum and such discretion cannot be interferred with by the executing Court at the instance of any of the judgment debtor qua decree holder in execution of decree.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Satyawati v. Rajinder Singh and another [ 2013(III) MPWN 27 =2014 (1) MPLJ 291] in which it is held as under : “10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Satyawati v. Rajinder Singh and another [ 2013(III) MPWN 27 =2014 (1) MPLJ 291] in which it is held as under : “10. Looking to the facts of the case and upon hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the order passed by the executing Court dated 16th March, 2009, which has been confirmed by the High Court is not correct for the reason that the executing Court ought not to have considered other factors and facts which were not forming part of the judgment and the decree passed in favour of the appellant -plaintiff. Once the decree was made in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, in pursuance of the judgment dated 19th January, 1996 delivered by the District Judge Faridabad, in our opinion, the executing Court should not have looked into other reports which had been submitted to it afterwards. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 10. In the opinion of this Court, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon the judgments quoted herein above, the learned Executing Court was not right in taking into consideration the other reports of the Commissioner which were submitted afterwards i.e. after passing judgment and decree which is impermissible under the law. Learned Executing Court committed an error by going behind the decree. It has no power/jurisdiction to amend the decree in the execution proceedings. Moreover, it was incumbent upon it to execute the decree as it is. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 2.2.2012 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set-aside. Learned Executing Court is directed to execute the judgment and decree passed on 29.1.2008 which has attained finality as it is. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.