JUDGMENT Arun Monga, J. (Oral) CM-7141-CII-2023 For the reasons stated in application, same is allowed. Annexures P-12 to P-15 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Main case (O&M) Petition herein is for setting aside impugned order dated 31.01.2023(Annexure P-9) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula whereby objections filed by petitioner-judgment debtors No.1(i) to (iii) to the execution petition, were dismissed. Further sought to set aside impugned order dated 18.03.2023 (Annexure P-11)passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula whereby appeal filed against aforesaid order dated 31.01.2023, was also dismissed. 2. The revision petition is premised on the averments that plaintiff/respondents filed suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 24.05.2005 (Annexure P-1)with a consequential relief of permanent injunction. Learned trial Court vide judgment/ decree dated 27.09.2011 (Annexure P-2), decreed the suit of plaintiff/ respondents and granted decree of specific performance of alleged agreement to sell dated 24.05.2005. Aggrieved, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal, which was dismissed vide judgment/ decree dated 16.03.2013 (Annexure P-3) by learned First Appellate Court. Still aggrieved, defendant No.1 filed RSA-2976-2013, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure P-4). Petitioners filed review application bearing RA- RS-25-2022 in RSA-2976-2013, which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2022 (Annexure P-5). SLP preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed. 2.1. Respondent-decree holders filed execution application. Upon notice, petitioners filed objections to the same. Learned Executing Court vide impugned order dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P-9) dismissed the said objections. Aggrieved, petitioners preferred appeal, which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.03.2023 (Annexure P-11). 3. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend that learned Courts below failed to appreciate that in case of refusal of specific performance, where plaintiff has also made an alternative prayer for refund of sale consideration, plaintiff should have filed a suit for recovery and suit for specific performance with alternative prayer was not maintainable. Also contends that as per section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, Court is not bound to grant specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. Further contends that petitioners are having no shop, house, land or any other source of earning. Defendant No.1 and his wife had already expired leaving behind three legal heirs i.e., one son and two daughters. Learned Executing Court had dismissed the objections of petitioners without granting any opportunity to lead evidence. Further contends that petitioners are having no shop, house, land or any other source of earning. Defendant No.1 and his wife had already expired leaving behind three legal heirs i.e., one son and two daughters. Learned Executing Court had dismissed the objections of petitioners without granting any opportunity to lead evidence. Learned counsel for petitioners relies on S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs., reported in 1994 AIR (SC) 853, Food Corporation of India v. Surendra, Devendra &Mahendra Transport Co., reported in 2003 (1) RCR (Civil) 773, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and others etc., reported in 2000 (2) RCR (Civil) 483 and Sameer Singh and another v. Abdul Rab and others, reported in 2015 AIR (Supreme Court) 591. 4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the record. 5. Impugned order dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, is premised, inter alia, on the following reasoning: "6. By way of the present execution, decree holders seek to enforce the decree dated 27.09.2011 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in Civil Suit No.223 of 2005 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.05.2005. Appeal filed by the predecessor of the objectors Late Sh. Sommath Sharma was dismissed by the Ld. First Appellate Court on 16.03.2013. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.04.2022 passed in RSANo.2976 of 2013, the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court contested by the present objectors was also dismissed. It is relevant to mention at this stage that plaintiffs i.e., decree holders were directed by the Hon'ble High Court to deposit the balance amount payable i.e.Rs.2,07,757/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its deposit. In compliance of the said order, an amount of Rs.5,26,625/- has been deposited in the Court. Copy of echallan is there on record. Still aggrieved, the objectors knocked the doors of the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing SLP which was also dismissed vide order dated 02.01.2023. Having lost upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the LRs of JD no.1 are again making a futile attempt to somehow resist the execution of the decree. For the first time, in the last 17 years, an altogether new plea is being raised before the executing court regarding payment of rent. No such plea was ever raised at any time before the Ld. For the first time, in the last 17 years, an altogether new plea is being raised before the executing court regarding payment of rent. No such plea was ever raised at any time before the Ld. Trial Court, first Appellate Court, Hon'ble High Court as well as the Apex Court. It is a trite law that Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. Enforcement of thedecree cannot be made contingent upon the payment of any rent as claimed by the objectors. As already discussed, decree holders have already complied with the directions of Hon'ble High Court by depositing the balance amount payable alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. This somersault taken by the legal heirs of the seller at the fag end of the litigation is without any legal basis. Executing Court has no power to modify the decree which is unambiguous and has been confirmed by the Highest Court." 6. The reasoning contained, as aforesaid, requires no interference by this Court. Apart from reasons contained therein, I am unable to persuade myself to go into and agree with the interpretation sought to be resorted now at this stage qua agreement dated 24.05.2004 (Annexure P-1) that decree is subject to contingencies of deposit of payment of rent as per agreement. Reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, the same very agreement was subject matter of specific performance in the original suit, which was decreed against petitioners. The defence, as taken now in the execution proceedings for the first time, was very much available to petitioners before the trial Court and the Executing Court rightly observed that it is too belated in the day to take such defence as neither before the trial Court nor the First Appellate Court nor the second appellate Court or even before the Supreme Court, such a stand was taken by petitioners. 6.1. Apart therefrom, inserting such a clause in the decree would amount to tinkering with the same and it is not for the Executing Court to do what has not been envisaged by the decretal Court. The Executing Court is simply entrusted with the task for ensuring that decree under execution is implemented in its letter and spirit to the full satisfaction of decree-holder(s). The case law cited by learned counsel for petitioners is distinguishable on facts of the present case. 7. The Executing Court is simply entrusted with the task for ensuring that decree under execution is implemented in its letter and spirit to the full satisfaction of decree-holder(s). The case law cited by learned counsel for petitioners is distinguishable on facts of the present case. 7. There is no room for interference in the aforesaid valid reasons recorded by learned Courts below. 8. No material irregularity in law or procedure has been committed by learned Courts below, so as to exercise extraordinary revisional jurisdiction herein. 9. As an upshot of above discussion, revision petition being bereft of merits, is dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.