IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1000 of 2008 BHOLA PRASAD Versus PURAN MALL & ORS ----------- 2. 15.7.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the defendant- judgment debtor and has moved this Court against the order of the court below dated 30.5.2008 in Execution Case No. 1/2003 affirming the delivery of possession on a report submitted by the Nazir regarding such delivery of possession. Before this Court would notice the submission of the counsel for the petitioner as against the impugned order, this much has to be borne in mind that a decree dated 12.2.1998 in T.S.No. 88/1977 could be ultimately executed by effecting delivery of possession on 14.5.2008 but the petitioner, judgment debtor, even thereafter has not mellowed in his sprit in chasing the decree holder, the plaintiff- opposite party. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that such decree could not have been executed in absence of specific details has no merit, inasmuch as this Court itself has perused the decree and has found 2 that there was no vagueness in such decree which could make the decree non-executable. The reliance placed in this regard by the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan vs. Hari Prasad Bhuyan & ors., reported in AIR 2003 S.C. 351, is also wholly misplaced, inasmuch as in the aforesaid case before the Apex Court the trial court had dismissed the suit and a question arose with regard to decree that was passed by the appellate court. Certain observations were made by the Apex Court only in that context as with regard to decree of the appellate court. In the present case there is no such situation because the decree passed by the trial court has stood affirmed by dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner. The next submission of the counsel for the petitioner invoking provisions of Order 21 Rule 22 C.P.C. on a ground that the decree was passed in the year 1988 and the execution case was levied in the year 1993 requiring the executing court to issue notice to the judgment debtor also has no force, inasmuch as even in absence of such 3 notice the petitioner, the judgment debtor, had himself appeared and had contested in the execution proceedings. The petitioner having suffered no prejudice on this account cannot complain absence of notice in terms of Order 21 Rule 22 C.P.C. and at least on this ground the clock cannot be reversed, inasmuch as the delivery of possession has already been effected on 14.5.2008 as reported by the Nazir in his report which has been only affirmed by the impugned order. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application and the same must be and is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) BCJ/ Surendra/