Executing Court may direct recovery of property modified by trespassers during litigation to prevent frustration of decree.

The petitioners were declared trespassers on land situated at Survey No. 156 paiki, Naroda, Ahmedabad, by the Trial Court in a suit filed by the respondent-owners.

The Trial Court’s decree (30.06.2025) for vacant possession was confirmed by the High Court in a First Appeal on 20.01.2026.

During execution proceedings (Execution Petition No. 84 of 2025), the respondents alleged that while the suit originally mentioned "two rooms," the petitioners had converted them into "three rooms" to obstruct possession.

A Court Commissioner’s report (31.05.2026) confirmed the petitioners remained in occupation of the third room.

The Executing Court passed an order on 16.07.2026 directing the petitioners to hand over the third room, failing which it would be taken by force.

The petitioners challenged this under Article 227, arguing the court traveled beyond the decree.

1. Whether the Executing Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the delivery of a "third room" not specifically mentioned in the original decree.

2. Whether the petitioners, having been declared trespassers, have a legal right to resist execution based on internal structural changes made to the suit property during the pendency of litigation.

The Court applied the principle that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree but clarified that structural alterations made pendente lite do not exempt property from a valid decree.

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India: High Courts should only interfere in cases of gross error or perversity, not mere errors of law (citing M/s. Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel and Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal).

The Court reasoned that the description of the suit property identified the total land area (560 sq. yards) and the status of the petitioners as trespassers.

The Court rejected the petitioners' technical argument that the decree was limited to "two rooms," noting that the petitioners failed to produce any title documents to prove legal possession of the "third room".

The High Court observed that the Court Commissioner’s measurement and sketch confirmed the petitioners were still occupying part of the identified suit land.

The Court held that if a trespasser makes internal modifications or additions during litigation, they cannot claim such areas fall outside the decree's scope; otherwise, the decree-holder would be deprived of the "fruits of the decree".

Since no jurisdictional error or perversity was found in the Executing Court's order, supervisory intervention was unwarranted.

The Court answered that the petitioners have no right to remain on any part of the land.

The petitioners were directed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of all parts of the land forthwith, failing which the Executing Court was authorized to proceed with a possession warrant and use of force; Case dismissed with no order as to costs.