JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —The revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.04.2018, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) , Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P., whereby he dismissed the petition filed by the judgment debtors/petitioners in the execution petition preferred by the decree holder/respondent under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. for enforcement of judgment and decree dated 09.07.2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 26 of 2007. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, on 09.07.2013, a decree for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction was passed by the learned trial Judge in favour of the decree holder and against the judgment debtors, directing them to demolish the construction existing upon the part of suit land measuring 00-05-18 bighas, comprised in Khewat No. 250 min, Khatauni No. 234 min, bearing Khasra No. 799, Kita 1, measuring 0-13-12 bighas, situated in Mauza Karao, H.B. No. 49, Illaqua Kohalu, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. 3. It is no in dispute that the judgment and decree so passed by the learned trial Judge was initially assailed before the learned Additional District Judge-I, Mandi and thereafter before this Court, and the findings so recorded by the learned trial Judge was ordered to be upheld. 4. The decree holder thereafter filed an execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, wherein it was alleged that despite the decree, the judgment debtors have not handed over the possession of the suit land in terms of the judgment and decree and were threatening to forcibly occupying the suit land despite the order of permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. 5. The judgment debtors filed objections taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability etc. It is submitted that decree was not executable as no spot map has been made part of the decree and in its absence, it could not be executed. It is further submitted that even if the spot map Ext.PW6/D had been made part of the decree, even then the decree cannot be executed as it depicts 4 pits and bricks stacked on the suit land. Lastly, it was averred that the decree had been obtained on the basis of wrong, illegal, null and void lease as suit land could not have been leased out by State of H.P. before regularization proceedings were pending since the year, 2002 upon the application of the judgment debtors. 6. Lastly, it was averred that the decree had been obtained on the basis of wrong, illegal, null and void lease as suit land could not have been leased out by State of H.P. before regularization proceedings were pending since the year, 2002 upon the application of the judgment debtors. 6. The learned Executing Court dismissed the objections by concluding that the Executing Court could not go beyond the decree. That apart, the objection as raised by the judgment debtors had already been determined while passing the decree. The judgment debtors had clearly admitted the possession to the extent of 00-05-18 bighas and this finding had been upheld up to this Court. 7. The decree was passed for mandatory as well as prohibitory injunction and once the judgment debtors had failed to comply with with the same, then obviously in terms of the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, the Court was required to give effect to the decree, more particularly, when it had come on record that the judgment debtors had encroached upon the area 00-05-18 bighas by constructing a water tank. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the objections as raised before the learned Executing Court and for the reasons as accorded by the learned Executing Court, I find no substance in this revision petition, as all the questions as raised herein, had already been determined while deciding the civil suit and as rightly observed by the learned Executing Court, it has no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree. 9. Having allowed the perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction granted by the learned trial Court and affirmed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal to become final, it would be no defence for the petitioners/JDs to plead that they had not obstructed the passage etc. Once the judgment debtors have suffered a decree, no attempt to circumvent the perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction can be permitted. The judgment debtors cannot be permitted to linger on the litigation in perpetuity and deprive the decree holder of the fruits of the litigation. The findings recorded by the learned Court below do not suffer from any illegality, much less perversity, and, therefore, warrant no interference. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.