IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2331 of 2006 GHULAM MURTAZAa son of late Md. Aminuddin, resident of village Jamaluddinchak, Police Station Danapur, District Patna.. … ..Judgment debtor/Petitioner Versus AMIRUL HASSAN son of Sayad Hassan, resident of village Jamaluddinchak, Police Station Danapur, District Patna.. …Decree holder/Opposite Party For the Petitioner: Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Kha, Advocate For the O.P. : M/s Mahendra Pd. Bhartee and S.K. Bhartee, Advocates. ----------- 2 29.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the sole opposite party. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has raised objection that there is a house standing upon the land described in schedule IV of the plaint and decree, which is going to be executed but neither the plaint nor the decree speaks about the house, as only 3 decimal of land has been described in the schedule of the plaint and decree. Thus, in view of that, he cannot be evicted from the house, which is standing over the aforesaid land. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that in paragraph 5 of the plaint it has been clearly stated that the property in dispute is part of the house standing upon the aforesaid land and in his written statement also, the petitioner has accepted that the 2 disputed suit property is a house, thus, there is no ambiguity in the judgment and decree. The petitioner is only raising this question, as he has already lost even the second appeal before this Court. The opposite party filed Title Suit No. 14 of 1985 for eviction of the petitioner. However, the aforesaid eviction suit was dismissed. Thereafter Title Appeal No. 12 of 1998 was preferred, which was allowed. The petitioner preferred second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the aforesaid first appellate court on 11.09.2002. Against the aforesaid decision of this Court the petitioner filed S.L.P.(Civil) No. 1476 of 2003, which was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 14.02.2003. Subsequent thereof, the decree of eviction was levied to execution and before the executing court, the petitioner raised the aforesaid objection with regard to the description of the suit property. The concerned court after looking into the records of the case came to the conclusion that on the conjoint reading of the plaint and the judgment of the court, it is clear that the suit property is house standing over the plot concerned, measuring an area of 3 decimal, and, thus, had dismissed the objection raised by 3 the petitioner. The opposite party has filed affidavit stating therein that delivery of possession has already been effected through the process of the court on 08.01.2008 itself. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error committed by the court concerned in passing the impugned order. This civil revision is, accordingly, dismissed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)