IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1336 of 2007 KEDAR RAI, Son of late Harihar Ray, R/o village Pokhara, P.S. Kotwa, District East Champaran ……. Defendant/Judgment Debtor/Petitioner Versus 1. BHIKHARI RAI, Son of Dhanukhdhari Ray 2. Phool Sagar Devi, D/o Ramdhari Ray, W/o Bunilal Ray Both residents of village Maharani, P.S. Kotwa, District East Champaran 3. Jata Shankar Rai 4. Chandeshwar Rai Both sons of late Ramayodhya Rai 5. Achhelal Rai, Son of Ramswarup Rai 3 to 5 are resident of village Pokhara, P.S. Kotwa, District East Champaran ….. Defendants/Decree Holder 6. Shivshankar Rai, Son of Mahednra Rai 7. Jitendra Rai, Son of Kailash Rai 6 and 7 are resident of village Pokhara, P.S. Kotwa, District East Champaran ….. Plaintiffs/Decree Holder 8. Mishri Rai 9. Rambalak Rai Both sons of late Kuldeep Rai 10. Ram Sahej Rai 11. Prabha Rai 12. Rajendra Rai 10 to 12 sons of late Kuldip Rai 13. Chhotelal Rai, So of late Harihar Rai 8 to 13 are resident of village Pokhara, P.S. Kotwa, District East Champaran 14. Smt. Seema Devi, d/o Harihari Rai, W/o Babulal Rai, R/o Ashok Siswa, P.S. Chakia, District East Champaran 15. Gauri Devi, W/o Chet Narain Rai 16. Vishwanath Rai 17. Daroga Rai 18. Lalan Rai 19. Birendra Rai 16 to 19 are sons of late Deolal Rai 20. Khublal Rai, Son of late Raja Rai 21. Mamesh Pandit, Son of late Ambika Pandit 22. Phaguni Ram, Son of late Vijan Ram 23. Konai Rai, Son of late Bhikham Rai 2 24. Adalat Rai, Son of late Bishun Rai 15 to 24 are resident of village Pokhara, P.S. Kotwa, District East Champaran 25. Kanti Rai, Son of Shivdhari Rai, R/o Dipau, P.S. Kotwa, District East Champaran … Defendants/Judgment Debtors … Opposite Parties ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, Advocate ------- 3 18.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision is directed against the order dated 5.5.2007 passed by Munsif, Sadar, Motihari, East Champaran, in Execution Case No. 8 of 2005, whereby his objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected by the Court concerned. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that lands of Khata No. 19 was not ordered to be partitioned in the Partition Suit No. 175 of 1982. ; However, during the preparation of final decree the same has been partitioned and has been allotted to the Takhta of some of the parties. Thus, it is urged that the final decree, not being in accordance with the preliminary decree, is not fit for execution. The court below on consideration of rival submissions had come to the conclusion that the 3 petitioner had neither challenged the preliminary decree nor the final decree. Even during the proceeding for the preparation of final decree no objection was ever raised by the petitioner, who claimed that he never appeared therein. Thus, it has rejected the prayer holding that the executing court has only to execute the decree and it cannot go behind the decree for looking into its correctness. Learned counsel for the petitioner, even before this Court, was not able to demonstrate that as on what basis the petitioner claims the lands of khata no. 19. At the time of hearing of this case a copy of the judgment passed in Partition Suit No. 175 of 1982 was produced wherein it has been clearly stated that it is admitted case that khata no. 19 belonged to one Abhilakh Rai and his three sons would have one third share each upon that. Learned counsel also produced a copy of the objection petition filed before the court below for perusal of this Court. Learned counsel could not show even from that petition that any specific statement regarding the claim of petitioners was made . 4 It has also been informed that another title suit of that partition has also been filed with regard to lands of Khata No. 19 wherein the petitioner has also been impleaded as one of the defendants. In above view of the matter I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the Court concerned while passing the impugned order. As a result, this civil revision is dismissed. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)