IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1426 of 2007 1. Ram Milan Mochi, S/o Late Fauzdari Mochi. 2. Shailesh Mochi. 3. Ajay Mochi. 4. Vinod Mochi. All sons of Ram Milan Mochi. 5. Prahlad Mochi, S/o Late Janwari Mochi. All are residents of Village-Dhangama, P.O.-Dhangama, P.S.- Ekangarsarai, District-Nalanda. ….Petitioners. Versus 1. Ram Briksha Mistri S/o Late Tetar Mistri, resident of Village- Dhangama, P.O.-Dhangama, P.S.-Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda. …Decree Holder—Opposite Party-Ist-Set. 2. The Anchal Adhikari, Ekangarsarai, Nalanda. 3. The Collector, Nalanda. …..Opposte Party 2nd Set. 4. Baldeo Mochi, S/o Late Fauzdari Mochi, resident of Village- Dhangama, P.O.-Dhangama, P.S.-Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda. ..Judgment Debtor..Opposite Party 3rd set. ….Opposite Parties. ----------- 10. 23.11.2011 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and opposite parties. By the impugned order dated 19.05.2007, the prayer made by the petitioner in his petition dated 06.01.2007 filed under Sections 47 and 151 C.P.C has been rejected. In the said petition it has been stated that the decree holders are three brothers who have separated and the disputed portion on which the delivery of possession is to be effected has not fallen in their share and further a compromise has also been made with them. On the basis of these facts, the prayer had been made to drop the proceeding of the execution case and dismiss the same. In the impugned order the learned Court below had referred to two earlier orders dated 21.08.2006 and 24.02.2007 by which the direction had been issued 2 for delivery of possession and the assertion of partition and compromise had not been accepted. Further in the impugned order the Court below has taken note of the stand of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the 1/3rd amount of the cost of execution to the decree holder, Rambriksh Mistri as there has been compromise with the remaining decree holders. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the delivery of possession in the execution case has already been effected and the report of the Nazir regarding execution has also been accepted by the Court. He has further urged that later on the matter had been compromised between the parties and as such there was no occasion for proceeding with the cases by effecting delivery of possession. He has also contended that the story that soon after the delivery of possession, the judgment debtors again demolished the door, is concocted and made only for the purpose of harassing the judgment debtor. From the impugned order and after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that there is a decree in favour of the decree holders in which a direction has been issued to open the door. The execution case has been filed for implementing the said direction. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said direction had already been implemented whereas it is the stand of the decree-holder that soon after the execution, the door has been demolished. It appears from the impugned order that earlier the orders dated 21.08.2006 and 3 24.02.2007 have been passed in the execution case with regard to the delivery of possession and the case of compromise had been disbelieved. It is well settled that it is the duty of the executing Court to execute the decree in its true terms and thereafter to record its satisfaction. The earlier orders passed in the execution case were not challenged by the petitioners and were allowed to attain finality as such there was no scope before the executing Court to reconsider the same facts and dismiss the execution case. There is no error of jurisdiction or illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed. Kamlesh (V. Nath, J.)