15. This Court has time and again cautioned against the Execution Court adopting such an approach. In Topanmal Chhotamal v. Kundomal Gangaram, AIR 1960 SC 388 a three-judge bench held as follows:

“It is a well-settled principle that a Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree: it must take the decree as it stands, for the decree is binding and conclusive between the parties to the suit”.

Yet again, in Meenakshi Saxena (supra) it was reiterated that:

“The whole purpose of execution proceedings is to enforce the verdict of the court. Executing court while executing the decree is only concerned with the execution part of it but nothing else. The court has to take the judgment in its face value. It is settled law that executing court cannot go beyond the decree. But the difficulty arises when there is ambiguity in the decree with regard to the material aspects. Then it becomes the bounden duty of the court to interpret the decree in the process of giving a true effect to the decree. At that juncture the executing court has to be very cautious in supplementing its interpretation and conscious of the fact that it cannot draw a new decree. The executing court shall strike a fine balance between the two while exercising this jurisdiction in the process of giving effect to the decree.”

16. As is commonly known, the stream cannot rise above its source…. .