2025:UHC:4889 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS 1651/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Nikhil Singhal, Advocate, for the respondent no. 1 to 4. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, for the caveator. (2) Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was decreed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Vikasnagar, Dehradun vide judgment dated 24.12.2021. Petitioner put the decree to execution. In the execution application, respondent no. 1 to 4, who were not party to the suit, were also added as respondents and it was alleged that respondent no. 1 to 4 are unauthorisedly raising construction over plot no. 1608 and 1609, which was subject matter of the suit. Respondent no. 1 to 4 filed objection to the execution application and thereafter they moved an application seeking spot inspection. Prayer for spot inspection made by respondent no. 1 to 4 was allowed by executing court, as petitioner (decree holder) submitted that he has no objection to the prayer for spot inspection. Executing court while allowing the prayer for spot inspection also directed the parties to maintain status quo qua land comprised in plot no. 1607 also. Order of status quo passed by executing court was challenged by respondent no. 1 to 4 in a revision and the revisional court set aside the order of executing court to the extent it directed the parties to maintain status quo. 2025:UHC:4889 Decree holder has challenged the judgment of revisional court in this writ petition. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that executing court had directed the parties to maintain status quo only till 4.7.2025, as by that time spot inspection report would be submitted by the officials of revenue department. He submits that respondent no. 1 to 4 are raising construction over plot no. 1608, therefore the interference made by revisional court was unjustified and unsustainable. (4) Learned Counsel for respondent no. 1 to 4, however, submits that in the plaint filed by petitioner, he has admitted that he sold part of his land comprised in plot no. 1607 to respondent no. 1 to 4. He submits that respondent no. 1 to 4 are raising construction on the plot which was purchased by them from the petitioner by separate sale deeds. Thus he submits that revisional court was justified in setting aside the order of status quo passed by executing court qua land comprised in plot no. 1607, which was not subject matter of the suit. (5) Law is well settled that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment. However writ petition is disposed of by providing that construction, if any, raised by respondent no. 1 to 4, shall abide by final outcome of execution proceedings. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 12.6.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91 957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.06.17 11:23:50 +05'30' 2025:UHC:4889