ORDER : 1. The petitioner/plaintiff-decree holder has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 21-08-2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class II Bemetara in Special Case No. 182-A/79 by which the learned Executing Court has rejected the application filed by the decree holder under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has directed the Tahsildar, Kamharia to handover the possession of land excess to 2.5 acres of land of Khasra No (old) 13/1 and 13/2 which are now re-numbered as Khasra No. 43 and 45 to Bharat. The petitioner has also filed writ petition assailing the order dated 29.09.2015 Annexure P/1-A by which the learned Executing Court has allowed the objection of the judgment-debtor and directed for demarcation of the suit property through competent revenue officer. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge, Class II, Bemetara which was registered as Civil Suit No. 182-A/79 for declaration of title, possession and loss of consortium mainly contending that one Sishupal Singh has sold the property to Girdhar bearing Khasra No. 13/1 and 13/2 area 2.7 acres as per sale deed (Ex.P/1), later on this land was sold to Gowri Bai, thereafter the deed of transfer was recorded between Keshav and Narsinghlal vide Annexure P/3. It has also been contended that the defendants No. 1 to 4 are sons of Shishupal Singh and defendants No. 5 to 8 are sons of Brijlal who are grandson of Shishupal. The partition took place between them during life time of Shishupal Singh. Accordingly, Khasra No 13/2 area 2.5 acres was received in the share of Shishupal Singh and on 11-6-1963 Shishupal Singh sold the property to defendant No.1 but inadvertently it has been mentioned Khasra No. 13/1, which falls within the share of Baran Singh who is brother of Shishupal Singh. After death of Baran Singh the property was handed over to Lakhan Singh and he was in possession of the property. Thereafter, in the year 1963, he sold the property to Narsingh Seth and in the year 1968 Narsingh had also transferred the property in the name of plaintiff and since then plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. After death of Baran Singh the property was handed over to Lakhan Singh and he was in possession of the property. Thereafter, in the year 1963, he sold the property to Narsingh Seth and in the year 1968 Narsingh had also transferred the property in the name of plaintiff and since then plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. On 10-2-1968, when the plaintiff moved an application for attestation of the property submitted sale deed, then the attesting officer has passed the order of attestation but the record was never rectified. As per the amendment No. 217/2018 order of correction was passed on 11-9-1977. 3. It has been contended in the plaint that during life time of Shishupal Singh there was no dispute about the property and due to non-correction in the revenue record the standing crop of the plaintiff has been forcefully taken in the year 1977 by the defendants and deprived the plaintiff to seek profits from the suit property. As such she is entitled to get the loss of standing crop which was sown in the field. In the year 1977 the plaintiff has again sown flaxseed which have been forcefully withdrawn by the defendants and dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property, therefore, the suit was filed for declaration, possession and loss of mesne profit. 4. The defendants filed their written statement and the learned trial court has framed issues. The relevant issue for deciding the controversy is issue No.1 which is extracted below:- ^^¼1½ D;k okfn;k xzke rksju dh Hkwfe [k-ua- 13@2 jdck 2-50 ,dM+ dh ,d ek= ekfyd o Hkwfe Lokeh gS\** 5. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial court while deciding the issue No.1 has recorded its finding that the plaintiff is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 13/2 and thereafter has passed the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial court has recorded its finding that the plaintiff is entitled to get land bearing Khasra No 13/2 and the defendants have no right to interfere in the possession along with loss of mense profit which comes to the tune of Rs.900/-. 6. The learned trial court has recorded its finding that the plaintiff is entitled to get land bearing Khasra No 13/2 and the defendants have no right to interfere in the possession along with loss of mense profit which comes to the tune of Rs.900/-. 6. Being aggrieved with this order, the defendants have preferred an appeal before the learned First Additional District Judge, Bemetara which was registered as Civil Appeal No 63-A/1981. The learned first appellate Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has dismissed the appeal on 02-08-2000 and affirmed the judgment and decree. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the defendants have preferred Second Appeal No 26 of 2000 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has stayed the judgment and decree passed by the both the courts below and on reorganisation of the State the matter has been transferred to this Court and this Court dismissed the second appeal vide its order dated 20-6-2011. Being aggrieved with the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the defendants have preferred SLP (Civil Appeal No. 31437 of 2012 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has also been dismissed on 2-11-2012. 7. After dismissal of the first appeal, the plaintiff decree holder has preferred executing proceedings before the learned Executing Court which was registered as Execution Case No. 182-A/79. The judgment-debtor appeared before the Executing Court and raised objection mainly contending that the land bearing Khasra No 13/1 and 13/2 have been re-numbered as Khasra No 43 and 45 and area of land bearing Khasra No. 45 is 1.140 hectares which comes to 2.84 acres which is more than 2.5 acres of decree. Thus, the plaintiff/ decree-holder is only entitled to get the decree of land bearing 2.5 acres only whereas the plaintiff was in possession of land in excess to the decree which comes to 0.35 acres and has also prayed for demarcation of the property. The execution proceeding was stayed in pursuance of the order passed by this Court and remained pending till the Second Appeal and SLP have been dismissed. 8. The execution proceeding was stayed in pursuance of the order passed by this Court and remained pending till the Second Appeal and SLP have been dismissed. 8. The decree-holder has filed reply to the said application and raised objection contending that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit for land bearing Khasra No 13/2 which is now re-numbered as Khasra No 45 area 1.140 acres and there was no change in the demarcation of the property, as such Patwari has given the possession after following due process and it was also contended that at the time of possession warrant during spot inspection the judgment debtor was also present but has not raised any objection, thus, present objection is nothing but after thought story and would pray for rejection of the objection raised by the judgment-debtor. This objection was also allowed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 29-09-2015 and the Executing Court has directed for demarcation of the suit property with the assistance of the competent Revenue Officer. Thereafter learned Executing Court vide order date 21-08-2017 directed the plaintiff decree-holder to handover the possession of excess of 2.5 acres land bearing Khasra No. 13/1, 13/2 (renumbered Khasra No. 43 and 45) to defendant Bharat. Being aggrieved with these orders the decree holder has filed this writ petition wherein Court has stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 21-8-2017 and since then the proceedings are kept in abeyance. 9. During pendency of this case, this court has called the record of the Executing Court which has been perused by this court. 10. Mr. Viprasen Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the leaned Executing Court has committed illegality in allowing the objection raised by the judgment debtor. He would further submit that the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the terms of the decree and would submit that the illegal demarcation has been done by the Patwari and on the basis of that illegal demarcation learned Executing Court has directed to give the extra land of 0.35 acres to the judgment-debtor whereas no such pleading has been ever taken by the judgment-debtor about the excess land in the original suit. He would further submit that the learned Executing Court ought to have seen that the respondents have never pleaded in their written statement about the excess land of Khasra No 13/2 till the final judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court. It has also been contended even in the first appeal or in the second appeal or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court he has not pleaded about excess of land and in the execution proceeding for the first time he has filed this application for demarcation raising new issue which was neither pleaded nor raised when the suit was filed. Thus, he would pray that the executing court should have given the entire land of Khasra No 13/2 to the decree-holder as per the judgment and decree of court below and also prayed for quashing of the order dated 21-8-2017 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 29-9-2015 (Annexure P/1-A). To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Meenakshi Saxena and another vs. ECGC Ltd (Formerly known as Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India) and another, reported in AIR 2018 SCC 2831, Gurudev Singh vs. Narain Singh, reported in AIR 2008 SC630, M/s. Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt Ltd., vs. P.R. Selvam Alagappan and also referred to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Shivnath Prasad Shrivastava and others vs. Board of Revenue of MP, Gwalior and others, reported in (2002) 2 MPHT 459 , and also referred to judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Batulbi vs. Munnawarkhan, reported in Weekly Note 425, 1982 and would pray for allowing the writ petition. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the Executing Court has passed a reasoned order which does not warrant any interference and would dismissal of the writ petition. 12. Mr. Vaibhav A Goverdhan and Mr. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the Executing Court has passed a reasoned order which does not warrant any interference and would dismissal of the writ petition. 12. Mr. Vaibhav A Goverdhan and Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 6 opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Executing Court has rightly passed the order in accordance with law and material on record and would submit that if 2.5 acres of land is granted to the petitioner, then it will be beyond the scope of judgment and decree, as such learned trial court has rightly allowed the objection raised by the defendants and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of courts below with utmost satisfaction. 14. The learned trial court while deciding the issue No.1 has specifically recorded a finding that while deciding the suit on 23-7-1981 has framed the Issue No,.1 which has been quoted above wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the plaintiff is only entitled to get the land bearing Khasra No. 13/2 area 2.50 acres and the learned trial Court in para 9 of the judgment has specifically recorded its finding that Shivnandan (PW/1) has exhibited the contents of the Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/1 which clarifies that the land bearing Khasra No 13/1 and 13/2 area 2.7 acres. 15. Giridhari Singh (PW/4) has also stated that Shishupal Singh has sold the property and that land has been sold to plaintiff and after taking possession of the land the same has been sold to plaintiff. He has purchased the land 2.7 acres of land bearing Khasra No 13/1 and the Patwari records were also exhibited as Ex.P/1 and in paragraph 10, the trial Court has recorded its finding while appreciating the evidence of DW/1 Churawan that he has specifically mentioned that Khasra No 13/1 and 13/2 have been given to Shishupal Singh and whatever the land he received he has sold to Giridhar Singh and Khasra No. 13/2 was received in partition to B. Singh. Thereafter, he has recorded its finding that Shishupal Singh sold the land to Giridhar and later on it has been sold to plaintiff and the plaintiff’s right was interfered. Thereafter, he has recorded its finding that Shishupal Singh sold the land to Giridhar and later on it has been sold to plaintiff and the plaintiff’s right was interfered. He has recorded a finding that after death of Brijlal the land bearing Khasra No 13/2 area 2.5 acres of land was in possession of sons of Brijlal. He has also clarified in cross examination that Shishupal Singh has five brothers and partition has also taken place in the year 1947. The trial court has recorded its finding that the land bearing Khasra No 13/1 was received by Shishupal Singh and Khasra No 13/2 was received by Brijlal. After considering the entire evidence on record, the trial court has specifically decided the issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff wherein it has been mentioned that the plaintiff is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.13/2. The said order was affirmed by the First Appellate Court and thereafter by this court, against which SLP was also preferred which has been dismissed as discussed above. 16. Thus, from bare perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court the plaintiff/decree holder has been declared title holder of the suit property bearing Khaasra No 13/2 and issue No.1 has been specifically mentioned that the plaintiff is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 13/2 area 2.50 acres only. Thus, there was clear judgment and decree and there is no ambiguity with regard to description and area of the property. Even the decree holder/plaintiff has never moved any application for alleged arithmetical mistake or regarding description and area of the suit property. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff with an open eyes has admitted that the decree was passed with regard to land bearing Khasra No 13/2 area 2.50 acres. 17. The contention raised by the decree holder that the executing court cannot travel beyond the terms of the decree is well settled position of law. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of S. Bhaskaran vs. Sebastian (dead) by Legal Representatives and others, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 161 has also considered this issue and has held in paras 9 to 12 which read as under. “9. Having perused the records and the findings of the Trial Court, we find ourselves unable to agree with the decision of the High Court in the impugned judgment. “9. Having perused the records and the findings of the Trial Court, we find ourselves unable to agree with the decision of the High Court in the impugned judgment. It is well-settled that an executing court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution (see Rameshwar Dass Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another, (1996) 5 SCC 728 ). 10. In the present case, the Trial Court had already considered the evidence on record and given a finding that the Appellant and his uncle were the trustees of the temple. Notably, Umapathymurthy was a party to this suit and had contested it by filing a written statement, claiming to be the eldest son of Sadhasivamurthy. However, at that time, he did not put forth any objections to the heir certificate of Sadhasivamurthy, which was considered by the Trial Court while arriving at its finding. This judgment was confirmed by the First Appellate Court and no further appeal was preferred by the Respondents against it. In light of this, the findings of the Trial Court have become final, and Umapathymurthy as well as the other Respondents are bound by them. 11. By allowing them to re-open the question of trusteeship by way of an application in an execution petition, the High Court has gone beyond the decree to be executed and exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. Since the findings of the Trial Court had attained finality, the decision of the executing court dated 31.01.2007 by which E.A. No. 5750/2003 was dismissed, should have been affirmed. Thus, the impugned judgment is not only illegal, but also without jurisdiction. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, we set aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2007 in Civil Revision Petition No. 1007 of 2007 passed by the High Court. The order of the City Civil Court, Chennai dated 31.01.2007 in E.A. No. 5750/2003 is restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly”. 18. Again, in case of Sanwarlal Agrawal and others vs. Ashok Kumar Kothari and others, Civil Appeal No 1312-1313 of 2023 decided on 21-2-2023, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held in para 15 which reads as under. “15. This Court has time and again cautioned against the Execution Court adopting such an approach. The appeal is allowed accordingly”. 18. Again, in case of Sanwarlal Agrawal and others vs. Ashok Kumar Kothari and others, Civil Appeal No 1312-1313 of 2023 decided on 21-2-2023, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held in para 15 which reads as under. “15. This Court has time and again cautioned against the Execution Court adopting such an approach. In Topanmal Chhotamal v. Kundomal Gangaram, reported in AIR 1960 SC 388 ," a three-judge bench held as follows: "It is a well-settled principle that a Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree: it must take the decree as it stands, for the decree is binding and conclusive between the parties to the suit". Yet again, in Meenakshi Saxena (supra) it was reiterated that: "The whole purpose of execution proceedings is to enforce the verdict of the court. Executing court while executing the decree is only concerned with the execution part of it but nothing else. The court has to take the judgment in its face value. It is settled law that executing court cannot go beyond the decree. But the difficulty arises when there is ambiguity in the decree with regard to the material aspects. Then it becomes the bounden duty of the court to interpret the decree in the process of giving a true effect to the decree. At that juncture the executing court has to be very cautious in supplementing its interpretation and conscious of the fact that it cannot draw a new decree. The executing court shall strike a fine balance between the two while exercising this jurisdiction in the process of giving effect to the decree." 19. From the above stated position, it is quite vivid that the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the terms of the decree. Admittedly, when the issues were framed and the learned trial Court while framing issue has specifically described the area of land as Khasra No. 13/2 area 2.50 acres and later on the Khasra No. 13/1 and 13/2 have been renumbered also Khasra Nos.43 and 45, therefore, the plaintiff as per the decree passed by the trial Court will be entitled to hold the land bearing Khasra No. 13/2 which is now re-numbered 45 area 2.50 acres only. As such, he is not entitled to get excess land beyond the terms of decree. 20. As such, he is not entitled to get excess land beyond the terms of decree. 20. Considering all the facts, and material on record, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order. The order passed by the trial Court is in conformity with the powers conferred upon by the Executing Court and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanwarlal Agrawal and others (supra). Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 21. Interim order passed by this court on 21-08-2018 earlier is vacated. 22. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.