ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Executing Court whereby the execution petition filed by the petitioner-DHs has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 31.07.1996 the petitioner-DHs filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondent-JDs from opening any nali, window, ventilator, mori, door, etc. in the Gali of the petitioner-DHs as mentioned in the plaint. Vide judgement and decree dated 17.01.2004 (Annexure P-3) the Trial Court dismissed the suit. However, the lower Appellate Court, vide judgement and decree dated 01.06.2007 (Annexure P-4), decreed the suit.

3. In 2013 the petitioner-DHs filed an execution petition (Annexure P-1) seeking execution of the judgement and decree dated 01.06.2007 (Annexure P-4). It was averred that the respondent-JDs were creating a hinderance and obstructions in the construction of a wall in the Gali by the petitioner-DHs. Some of the respondent-JDs filed objections (Annexure P-2) to the execution petition stating that they had not violated the judgement and decree dated 01.06.2007. It was submitted that as per the decree the respondent-JDs had been restrained from opening any nali, window, ventilator, mori, door, etc. in the Gali of the petitioner-DHs and that they had not opened any nali, window, ventilator, mori, door, etc. in the Gali of the petitioner-DHs. It was further submitted that the petitioner-DHs, under the garb of the decree dated 01.06.2007, wanted to block the single rasta for the ingress and egress of the plot owned by the respondent-JD Nos.12 and 13 whereas neither was such a prayer made by the petitionerDHs in the plaint in the suit nor was such a relief granted by the lower Appellate Court in its decree dated 01.06.2007 and that the petitioner-DHs had no right to block the single rasta for the egress and ingress of the plot owned by the respondent-JD Nos.12 and 13.

4. Vide impugned order dated 28.04.2017 the Executing Court dismissed the execution petition holding inter-alia that even PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that respondent-JD Nos.12 and 13 and prior to them Tulsi Ram has never opened nali, door, ventilator, window, mori etc. towards the passage and that since no opening had been constructed or made in the said Gali then it could not be said that the respondent-JDs have violated the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2007. Hence, the present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-DHs has contended that once a decree of permanent injunction had been passed against the respondentJDs they (the respondent-JDs) could not stop the petitioner-DHs from raising any construction in the Gali and doing so amounted to violation of the judgement and decree dated 01.06.2007. It was submitted that the Executing Court had erred in law in dismissing the execution petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-DHs.

7. The decree passed in favour of the petitioner-DHs was to restrain the respondent-JDs from opening any nali, window, ventilator, mori, door, etc. in the Gali of the petitioner-DHs. There is no allegation that the respondent-JDs have opened any nali, window, ventilator, mori, door, etc. in the Gali of the petitioner-DHs. Rather, the grouse of the petitioner-DHs is that the respondent-JDs are creating a hinderance in the construction of a wall by the petitioner-DHs. The decree dated 01.06.2007 no where deals with giving any permission to the petitioner-DHs to raise construction in the Gali. As such, clearly there is no violation of the decree dated 01.06.2007 by the respondent-JDs. By filing the execution petition the petitioner-DHs cannot seek a relief which was never granted to them when the decree dated 01.06.2007 was passed.

8. In Gurdev Singh vs. Narain Singh [(2007)14 SCC 173] [LQ/SC/2009/1187] the decree passed by the Trial Court restrained the defendant-JD from planting any tree on certain khasra numbers. The decree did not speak of removal of any tree which had already been planted. The plaintiff-DH approached the Executing Court for removal of the tree standing on the land. The Executing Court directed the defendant-JD to remove the trees which are standing within 2 karams of the common butt within a period of one month. The order passed by the Executing Court was confirmed by the High Court. On appeal by the defendant-JD, the Supreme Court held :

“7. We agree with the said contention. A bare perusal of the decree in question would clearly demonstrate that the appellant herein was restrained by a permanent injunction from planting any tree on Khasra No.17/2 on the one side and Khasra Nos.218/1 and 17/1 on the other side. The decree did not speak of removal of any tree which had already been planted. The executing court, as noticed hereinbefore, while interpreting the said decree proceeded completely on a wrong premise to hold that there should not be any tree within two karams on either side of the common boundary of the parties. Such an interpretation evidently is not in consonance with the tenor of the decree. A jurisdictional error, thus, has been committed by the High Court.

8. It is well settled that executing court cannot go behind the decree. As the decree did not clothe the decree-holder to pray for execution of the decree by way of removal of the trees, the same could not have been directed by the learned executing court in the name of construing the spirit of the decree under execution.”

9. In view of the discussion above and the settled law that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the Executing Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

10. The present revision petition, which is devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

11. Dismissed.