T.S.DOABIA, J. - (1.)J .C Sehgal, who figures as a petitioners in civil Revision 231/ 2001 and as a respondent in Civil Revision 4/2002, through his counsel submits that the well know principle of law that the executing court is not supposed to go behind the decree would not be applicable to the facts of this case. It is submitted that, no -doubt the executing court is supposed to execute the degree as it stands and it cannot question its correctness, nor can it alter the relief granted by the degree, nor can the executing court amend the degree nevertheless, as indicated above, it is submitted that present is a case where an exception is supposed to be carved out. With a view to examine this aspect of the matter, would be apt to notice few facts:
(2.)D .D. Abrol, petitioner in Civil Revision 4/2002, who is opposing the point of view put across by J.C Sehgal and (here -in -after referred to as the degree holder) filed a suit for possession under the Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act Svt 1993 (1936 A.D), In this suit, it was pleaded that he owned a house situated at Mohalla mast Garh, Jammu. The defendants therein namely Ved Pal Gupta and Ishwar Dass, owned a house and a piece of open land contiguous to the house of the plaintiff degree holder. The boundaries of this house were indicated in para 1 of the plaint. In para 2 of the plaint, it was submitted 'that all the parnalas of the house flow towards the land of the defendant No 2 since the construction of the house of the plaintiff and as the house of defendant No 2 is contiguous to the house of plaintiff,, as such plaintiff has a vested right of pre -emption in the house alongwith the open land was sold without notice to the plaintiff. It was stated that he was ready and willing to pay the price offered by the defendant No 1. It was this suit which was decreed. In para 2 of the judgment, the trial court noticed that the plaintiff had stated that defendant No 1 and 2 owned a house and a vacant piece of land in the same locality which is contiguous to the house of the plaintiff and that all the parnalas of his house flow towards the land of defendant No 2 Since the construction of his house and his house is also ontinguous to the house of defendants. It was on this basis, a decree for pre -emption was claimed. The evidence which came on the record was taken note of. PW1 Amar Nath, PW2, Pradeep Kumar and PW3 Mast Ram stated that the water of the parnalas of the plaintiff flows through the compound of the suit house, PW4 Pritam Singh, stated that infront of plaintiff house there is a vacant land and plaintiff has his passage through that vacant piece of land. It was further stated by him that the water of parnalas of the Plaintiff's house falls at the back of plaintiff house in the suit land.
The plaintiff appeared in the witness box. He stated that he has a passage through the house of the defendant. In addition to it, it was stated that the water of the parnalas of his house passes through the house of the defendant. According to him, the paranalas had been fitted since long i.e before the sale was executed. It was stated by him that his passage would be blocked and water course of the parnalas of his house would also be resultantly blocked. This witness was cross examined. In cross examination it was stated that the kitchen wall of the plaintiff and the defendant is joint between the parties. Taking note of this evidence, the suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed. The fact that the suit property was found to be in the vicinity of the house of plaintiff and the water of the parnala fitted in the roof passed through the defendant's house was fully proved, such was the conclusion drawn in para 9 of judgment passed by the trial court and the suit was accordingly decreed on 13th Dec 84. Armed with the decree, the decree holder sought execution. This was resisted. The executing court was of the opinion that no case was made out for not going ahead with the execution proceedings. When execution was taken, the decree holder took possession of the land which was vacant. So far as the house in question is concerned, it was found to be locked. The trial court gave appropriate directions with a view to break open the locks and executed the warrant of possessions. This order passed on 13th Nov' 2001 is the subject matter of challenge in civil Revision 231/2001.

(3.)AS to how JC Sehgal claimed the property may now be examined. According to JC Sehgal Ved Paul who had purchased the house had raised construction on the spot and had sold the suit property to one Shashi Kant on 19th May'78. This Shashi Kant is said to have sold the property to one Raj Kumar, who was tenant in the suit Property. This was vide sale deed dt, Ist July' 81. JC Sehgal is said to have purchased this property from aforesaid Raj Kumar. It is in this manner, JC Sehgal is claiming the property. It is submitted by him that an object in was taken that a subsequent purchaser would not be bound by the decree. According to him, Raj Kumar from who he purchased the property had filed a suit against Devi Dass. He had taken a plea that the decree passed by the trial court o 13th Dec' 84 be declared null and void as it is not executable. The objection taken was that so far as Raj Kumar is concerned, he has no right independent of the right possessed by his predecessor Ved Paul, and he would be bound by the decree. The limited issue was decided against DD Abrol. A revision petition was filed in this Court. This was dismissed. It is accordingly submitted that the decree in question can be challenged and JC Sehgal would not be bound by the same. With a view to sustain this argument, it is submitted that Section 15 of the Right of prior purchase gives a right of prior purchase in the owners of property contiguous to the property sold. This is so mentioned in Section 15 (Sixthly). It is submitted that this clause was struck down and in place a new clause came to be substituted inter -on.