IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.496 of 2009 Uday Narayan Singh, son of late Nageshwar Singh, resident of Village Narharpur, Pergana-Bal, P.O. Narharpur, P.S. Marhowrah, District Saran. …Judgment Debtor- Petitioner. -Versus- 1. Sheojee Singh, son of late Ram Sahay Singh 2. Ganesh Singh 3. Jugal Kishore Singh sons of Sheojee Singh 4. Singheshwar Singh 5. Bisweshwar Singh alias Visheshwar Singh All of village and P.O. Narharpur, Pergana-Bal, P.S. Marhowrah, District Saran. …Decree holder-Opposite Parties Ist set. 6. Deo Narain Sharma 7. Ram Narain Sharma 8. Mahabir Sharma 9. Kaushalya Devi, wife of Ram Mahabir Sharma 10.Vina Sharma, wife of Ram Narain Sharma O.Ps. No. 6 to 10 are residents of Muhalla- R.N. Dutta Road, Farbisganj, P.O. and P.S. Farbisganj, District Araria …Judgment Debtor-Opposite Parties 2nd set. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Nagendra Rai and Nawin Nikunj, Advocates For Opp. Party no.4: Mr. Mathura Nath Roy, Advocates. --------- 04/ 26.08.2009 I.A. No. 1864 of 2009 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing of this civil revision. From the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown due to which the petitioner could not file the instant civil revision earlier. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1864 of 2009 is allowed and the delay in filing of the instant civil revision is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.4. 3. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- 2 judgment debtor-petitioner challenging order dated 18.05.2007, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-V, Sr. Division, Saran, rejected objection filed by the petitioner and Execution Case No.03 of 1997 was directed to be proceeded with. 4. It transpires that the matter arises out of Partition Suit No. 139 of 1981, which was decreed on 11.01.1993 when preliminary decree was prepared and subsequently final decree was also prepared on 24.09.1997, against which First Appeal No. 593 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner, which is pending in this court. 5. In the meantime, Execution Case No.03 of 1997 was initiated by the plaintiffs-decree holders-opposite parties for execution of the final decree, which was delayed for long period due to objection raised by the judgment debtor without any order of stay passed by this Court in the aforesaid first appeal. 6. Now the judgment debtor-petitioner has claimed that by the final decree specific portion has been allotted to his share after takhtabandi, but the plaintiffs-decree holders-opposite parties as well as other defendants have transferred some portions of the petitioner’s allotted land to other persons regarding which an enquiry should be made. This claim has been denied by learned counsel for the plaintiffs-decree holders-opposite parties stating that none of the lands of the petitioner has been sold, rather they have sold their own lands. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 18.05.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 3 7. It is quite apparent that there is no occasion for delaying the proceeding of the execution case on that ground nor there is any necessity for making any enquiry with respect thereto as execution case is pending and execution has to be done as per the final decree. Hence the land allotted to the share of the petitioner has to be given to him in the said execution case even if it is in the possession of any other party or his vendor. 8. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to proceed with the case expeditiously in view of the observations made above. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )