As per case facts, the plaintiff sued for land possession after the defendant allegedly encroached on property purchased from the original owner's heirs. The defendant disputed the sale's validity and ... asserted prior possession. The trial court decreed the suit, which was upheld through multiple appeals, including to the Supreme Court. During execution, the judgment debtor filed objections claiming dispossession from land not part of the decree, which the executing and first appellate courts dismissed summarily. The question arose whether these objections under Order XXI Rules 97-101 CPC, asserting dispossession from extra-decreetal land, could be dismissed without evidence or framing issues. Finally, the High Court ruled that such objections are only maintainable if the disputed land is within the decree's scope. Since the appellant claimed dispossession from land not covered by the decree, the objections were deemed not maintainable. The Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, advising independent civil proceedings for claims of excess possession.