JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner/judgment debtor against the order dated 19.5.2011 (Annexure-P-5) passed by the executing Court rejecting an application filed by it and also against the order dated 19.6.2012 Annexure-P-9 passed by it whereby the petitioner has been directed to furnish an affidavit to the effect as to whether it is creating obstruction in possession of respondent or not. 2. The petitioner Krishi Upaj Mandi allotted plot No. 68 to the respondent/decree holder by virtue of a lease deed executed on 1.1.1968 for a period of thirty years. Subsequently, the lease deed was renewed on 30.8.1979 with a renewal clause as per which the lease could be renewed. A suit was filed by the respondent for declaration and permanent injunction in which a compromise was entered into between the parties on 7.7.1999 and a decree in terms of the said compromise was passed on 17.11.1999. The terms of the compromise were that the respondent had filed a map for sanction on 25.7.1982 which was to be sanctioned by the petitioner and the respondent was at liberty to raise construction on the plot as per terms of the lease deed. A decree for permanent injunction was granted in favour of respondent restraining the petitioner from interfering with her possession over the plot. 3. On 31.8.2009 the respondent filed an application under Order 21 rule 32 and 34 of the CPC alleging breach of the decree submitting that the petitioner is interfering with his possession over the plot and can forcibly dispossess her therefrom at any time. Reply was filed by the petitioner to the said application. 4. The petitioner also filed an application to the effect that it is only the respondent who is entitled to make construction over the plot but the same is being got done by her through her power of attorney holder which is impermissible. The respondent filed reply to the said application. By order dated 19.5.2011 the application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the executing Court observing that mere absence of respondent and her acting through her Power of Attorney Holder would not make any difference. However it was also observed that the lease deed of respondent is still in force and until and unless the same is cancelled, it shall continue to be effective. 5. However it was also observed that the lease deed of respondent is still in force and until and unless the same is cancelled, it shall continue to be effective. 5. Thereafter by order dated 19.6.2012 the executing Court has directed the petitioner to file an affidavit to the effect that it is not interfering in possession of the respondent nor is creating any obstruction in her access to the plot. It was observed that the application under Order 21 rule 32 of the CPC shall be considered only thereafter. 6. The order dated 19.5.2011 was in respect of decision of an application filed by the petitioner contending that the respondent is not herself taking any action with respect to the plot but is acting through her Power of Attorney Holder which is impermissible. The said application was rejected by the executing Court observing that merely because the respondent is acting through her Power of Attorney Holder, it would not make any difference. In the order it was also observed that the decree for permanent injunction against the petitioner is still in force and the lease deed of the respondent is effective at present also. The said observations have been made by the executing Court on its own and nothing has been brought on record to show that any objection was raised before it as regards executability of the decree hence there was no occasion, necessity or justification for the executing Court to have made such observations. It was only deciding an application filed by the petitioner and should have confined itself to the determination of that application itself. It has rightly rejected the application but has made uncalled for observations. 7. The decree which is being enforced by the respondent is for permanent injunction and is enforcible under Order 21 rule 32 of the CPC. Respondent has alleged contravention by the petitioner who has filed its reply contesting the same. For deciding the question whether the decree is being contravened or not, the only course available to the executing Court is to make an inquiry as regards allegations of contravention by the petitioner. The direction issued by it to the petitioner in the order dated 19.6.2012 is a step towards such an inquiry and cannot be faulted with. For deciding the question whether the decree is being contravened or not, the only course available to the executing Court is to make an inquiry as regards allegations of contravention by the petitioner. The direction issued by it to the petitioner in the order dated 19.6.2012 is a step towards such an inquiry and cannot be faulted with. The fact whether the decree is being contravened by the petitioner or not can only be ascertained by an inquiry as has been held by this Court in Nagar Palika Shivpur v. Ramesh Chandra Gupta, 1983 MPWN Note 302. 8. The executing Court has hence not committed any error in passing the impugned order dated 19.5.2011 rejecting the application of the petitioner and in passing the order dated 19.6.2012 issuing directions as contained therein. The uncalled for observations in the order dated 19.5.2011 are to be ignored. The Impugned orders hence do not warrant any interference. In case the petitioner has any grievance as regards the executability of the decree, then it shall be open for it to file an appropriate application before the executing Court in that regard. In case such an application is filed by the petitioner then the same shall be decided by the executing Court in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed off.