JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D. Mazumder, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This revision petition has been filed assailing the order dated 22-06-2018 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Karimganj in T. Ex. Case No. 02/2010 issuing certain directions to the Nazir for execution of the decree in question and also for handing over possession of a suit path to the petitioner herein with a further direction to handover the excess land to the respondents/ judgment debtors. Considering the nature of controversy involved in this proceeding, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, this revision petition is being taken up for disposal at the stage of motion hearing. 3. The facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the petitioners herein, as plaintiffs, had instituted Title Suit No. 143/1997 in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Karimganj, inter alia, praying for declaratory reliefs; for a decree of permanent injunction and for other consequential reliefs. It would not be necessary for this Court to refer to the averments made in the plaint in details save and except noticing that the basic grievance of the petitioners/ plaintiffs was pertaining to the obstruction allegedly created by the defendants to the free access and usage of the suit path described in Schedule-1 to the plaint. Title Suit No. 143/1997 was decreed by the learned trial court on 31-03-2007 pursuant whereto, the petitioners had started T. Ex. Case No. 02/2010 for execution of the decree. 4. There was considerable dispute raised by the judgment debtors as regard the true identity and measurement of the suit path. As such, a prayer was made by the judgment debtors to appoint a Survey Commissioner so as to accompany the Nazir at the time of execution of the decree. By the order dated 21-11-2011, the learned Executing Court had rejected the prayer made by the judgment debtors, i.e. the respondents herein for appointment of a Survey Commissioner. As such, a prayer was made by the judgment debtors to appoint a Survey Commissioner so as to accompany the Nazir at the time of execution of the decree. By the order dated 21-11-2011, the learned Executing Court had rejected the prayer made by the judgment debtors, i.e. the respondents herein for appointment of a Survey Commissioner. The aforesaid order dated 21-11-2011 was challenged by the respondents by filing CRP No. 48/2012, which was disposed of by the order dated 05-02-2013 passed by the learned Single Judge by observing the if the Nazir finds any difficulty in measuring the decreetal land, he would submit a report to the Executing Court seeking assistance of a technical person and then only the Executing Court can appoint a Survey Commissioner. 5. Thereafter, the judgment debtors had filed an application before the learned Executing Court to appoint a Survey Commissioner so as to measure the decreetal land with the help of Nazir but it appears that by the order dated 08-04-2013, the learned Executing Court had directed that the process of execution of decree be proceeded, thereby practically rejecting the prayer of the judgment debtors. By another order dated 25-04-2013, the Executing Court had also rejected the subsequent petition filed by the judgment debtors with a prayer to first survey the land and then only go for execution of the decree. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 08-04-2013 and 25-04-2013, the judgment debtors had once again approached this Court by filing CRP (I/O) No. 09/2013 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 21-06-2013 by making the following observation : “The learned executing Court, therefore, is directed to get the decree executed. It shall be the responsibility of the learned executing Court to ensure that the decree is executed in terms of the judgment passed and having regard to the schedule appended to the plaint. The learned executing Court shall issue warrant of possession, which shall be executed by the Nazir. It is needless to say that as observed in the earlier order dated 5th February, 2013 passed in CRP No. 48/2012, which has already been quoted above, if the Nazir finds any difficulty in identifying/ measuring the decreetal land, he will certainly submit a report to the Court seeking assistance of a technical person and then only the executing Court can appoint a survey commissioner, not prior to that. The learned executing Court if necessary shall take assistance of the District Administration as well as the Police Administration. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.” 7. It also appears from the record that thereafter, the learned Executing Court had issued a writ of execution to the Nazir and accordingly, the decree was executed and a report was submitted by the Sadar Nazir on 27-03-2013. It was at this stage that the respondents/ judgment debtors had raised a strong objection before the learned Executing Court, inter alia, contending that the land in excess of what is mentioned in the decree, has been taken over while executing the decree thereby depriving the petitioners/ judgment debtors of their homestead land. It has also been alleged that having taken over possession of the excess land, the petitioner/ decree holder has raised permanent structure thereupon in the form of boundary wall, so as to defeat the claim of the respondents/ judgment debtors. It was also the plea raised by the judgment debtors, inter alia, that the action of the Nazir involving other agencies on his own was in clear violation of the order dated 21-06-2013 wherein the High Court had categorically directed that assistance of technical person can only be allowed if the Nazir finds any difficulty in identifying/ measuring the decreetal land. Expressing such grievance, the judgment debtors had filed an application under Section 47 of CPC which was numbered and registered as Misc. Case No. 112/2013 arising out of T. Ex. Case No. 02/2010. In Misc. Case No. 112/2013 the learned Executing Court had passed an order dated 24-06-2014 issuing a direction to the Nazir to measure the breadth of Schedule-2 land in presence of both the parties or their representatives and note down the breadth and a proper report be submitted within 15 days. 8. It appears that in terms of the order dated 24-06-2014, instead of Nazir, the Survey Commissioner, Tusar Das had carried out the measurement of the land and thereafter, submitted a report before the Executing Court on 25-09-2014. 9. 8. It appears that in terms of the order dated 24-06-2014, instead of Nazir, the Survey Commissioner, Tusar Das had carried out the measurement of the land and thereafter, submitted a report before the Executing Court on 25-09-2014. 9. Taking note of the grievance expressed by the judgment debtors/ opposite parties and the materials available on record, the learned Executing Court had passed the impugned order dated 22-06-2018 issuing the following direction : “Hence, with the above finding I deem it proper to direct the Civil Nazir, Karimganj to visit the schedule 1 land (path) of the plaint of Title Suit No. 143/1997 along with the Ext.13-survey report and Ext.15-sketch map, being accompanied by Sri Tushar Das - the Survey Commissioner, and both are to locate the middle portion of the path strictly as per the said report and the sketch map, and thereafter within the said middle portion the Survey Commissioner is to measure and determine the portion of land measuring 4 feet 8 inches in breadth from south to north and 49 feet 4 inches in length from east to west i.e. 4 feet 8 inches X 49 feet 4 inches, and deliver the possession of the same to the O.P.s/ Degree holders which shall amount to execution of the decree passed in Title Suit No. 143/1997.” 10. After directing as above, by the order dated 22-06-2018 the learned Executing Court had further ordered as follows : “Further, the remainder portion of land left out on the Northern side, after carrying out the aforesaid land, is to be delivered to the petitioners/ Judgment Debtors by demolishing the structures (if any) of O.Ps/ Decree holders over the same. O.Ps/ Decree holders are to bear the expenses of Civil Nazir and the Survey Commissioner and also for demolition works if required to be done in the process. O.Ps/ Decree holders shall also bear the cost of police aid, if required. As regards the compensation, it is undeniably evident that the wall and iron gate etc. of the petitioners/ Judgment Debtors were demolished on 23.7.2013 in the process of execution of decree. However, it is not possible to determine any amount as to be the approximate monetary loss caused to the petitioners/ Judgment Debtors without ascertaining the actual damage. As regards the compensation, it is undeniably evident that the wall and iron gate etc. of the petitioners/ Judgment Debtors were demolished on 23.7.2013 in the process of execution of decree. However, it is not possible to determine any amount as to be the approximate monetary loss caused to the petitioners/ Judgment Debtors without ascertaining the actual damage. Hence, the Civil Nazir is also directed to ascertain the damage caused to the petitioners/ Judgment Debtors in consequence of the demolition of their property on 23.7.2013 and submit a report in that regard also, upon which the compensation shall be granted accordingly. A warrant is to be issued to the Civil Nazir and Sri Tushar Das, Survey Commissioner to comply with the aforesaid directions. Instant Misc. case stands disposed of accordingly, on contest without cost.” The order dated 22-06-2018 has been put under challenge in the present proceeding. 11. Mr. Roy, has primarily argued that the impugned order dated 22-06-2018 has been passed by the learned Executing Court without taking proper note of the report of the Survey Commissioner submitted on 25-09-2014, inasmuch as the said report, according to Mr. Roy, would undisputedly established the fact that no excess land of the petitioners had been taken over during the process of execution. It is also the contention of Mr. Roy that the impugned order dated 22-06-2018 is vitiated by perversity and therefore, is liable to be set aside on such count alone. 12. Responding to the aforesaid argument, Mr. Mazumder, learned Sr. counsel for the respondents has categorically argued that the materials on record would not only go to show that the Sadar Nazir, while executing the decree, has acted without the authority of law but he had illegally encroached upon the private land of the judgment debtors. Having detected the aforesaid anomaly, submits the learned Sr. counsel, the learned Executing Court had appointed a Survey Commissioner. According to Mr. Mazumder, the report of the Commissioner, read in conjunction with the Schedules to the plaint, would clearly go to show that the land in excess of what has been claimed in the plaint had been taken over from the judgment debtors while executing the decree. Under such circumstances, submits Mr. Mazumder, the impugned order is nothing but an attempt to remedy the illegality that had earlier been committed by the Nazir during the execution of the decree. 13. Under such circumstances, submits Mr. Mazumder, the impugned order is nothing but an attempt to remedy the illegality that had earlier been committed by the Nazir during the execution of the decree. 13. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the materials available on record. From the scrutiny of the reliefs prayed for in the plaint, I find that there is no prayer made in the plaint for issuing a decree for recovery of possession of the suit land nor has any such decree been passed by the learned trial court. As a matter of fact, the prayer in the plaint was to declare the Schedule-1 path was a public path and to remove all obstructions therefrom. Notwithstanding the same, by the impugned order dated 22-06-2018, the learned Executing Court has issued a direction to handover possession of certain area of land mentioned therein to the petitioners/ decree holders. The learned counsel for both the parties also could not explain as to how such a direction could be issued by the learned Executing Court. 14. Any attempt to execute the decree by the learned Executing Court by going beyond the decree and in violation of the earlier orders of this Court cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. In view of the above, the direction issued by the learned Executing Court in the order dated 22-06-2018, for handing over possession of the land to the decree holders, in the opinion of this Court, prima facie, appears to be in deviation of the decree and therefore, calls for a re-visit by the learned Executing Court. The order dated 22-06-2018 is, therefore, set aside. Learned Executing Court is directed to pass fresh order on the petition filed by the judgment debtor under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC in the light of the observation made hereinabove. Considering the substantial delay that has taken place in concluding the execution proceeding, an attempt may be made to dispose of the said application, as expeditiously as possible, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Revision petition stands disposed of.