M. Kamalakannan vs Manikandan

S. Vimala, J.—Challenging the Order dated 6.8.2014 made in E.P. No.1901/2012, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

According to the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, the extent of property decreed is 1660 sq.ft. Whereas, in the Sale Deed the larger extent of 1870 sq.ft. has been mentioned and therefore, the Decree inexecutable.

The Executing Court cannot go beyond the terms of the Decree. The extent of property to be covered in the Execution Petition must be strictly in terms of the Decree. It is not the case of the Judgment-debtor that the description of the property as mentioned in the Execution Petition did not tally with the description of property in the Decree.

Any other objection with regard to the extent of property cannot be raised after the Decree becoming final. Therefore, the Court below has rightly passed an Order ordering delivery as per Decree.

Even prior to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in another Civil Revision Petition, this Court has ordered disposal of the Executing Petition at an early stage.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied upon the several decisions and it is enough to mention a decision reported in a case in Sundaram v. Selvan alias Selvam, 2012 (2) MWN (Civil) 370, wherein it has been held that in the case of discrepancy in the extent of boundary, the boundary will prevail over the dimensions and that is also a settled law.

The Executing Court is not expected to consider other factors and facts which were not forming part of Judgment and Decree. The Executing Court has passed order legally.

There is no scope to entertain this Civil Revision Petition and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.