CRP 406/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Head Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioners/judgment debto rs and Mr. B Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree holde r. The petitioners/judgment debtors, by the present petition has challenged the ord er dated 28th September, 2011 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Jorhat in Misc . (J) Case No.32/2011 arising out of Title Execution Case No.7/2009, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 47 CPC has been rejected. It has been contended by Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitione rs that as the sale permission from the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Town Development Authority are required before execution of the sale deed pursuant to the decree passed in Title Appeal No.20/2007, which stands modified vide judgme nt and decree dated 1st December, 2010 passed in RSA No.121/2010, though the app lication seeking permission was made before the Deputy Commissioner and such per mission was granted, the same, however, was granted in respect of the land, whic h is not the decreetal land. It has been submitted that the fact was brought to the notice of the Executing Court in the application filed under Section 47 CPC contending that the decree is not executable and, therefore, ought not to have been rejected by the learned Executing Court, as has been done in the instant ca se. On the other hand, Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/de cree holder submits that the judgment debtors on one pretext or another is avoid ing the execution of the sale deed, though the decree was passed by the learned First Appellate Court on 19th May, 2008 in Title Appeal No.20/2007. It has also been submitted that by the impugned order dated 28th September, 2011, the appli cation filed by the judgment debtors under Section 47 CPC has rightly been rejec ted, as the decree passed in the said title appeal was merged with the decree pa ssed by this Court in RSA No.121/2010 and consequently the power of attorney hol der of the judgment debtors applied for sale permission from the Deputy Commissi oner giving the description of the land, as it appears in the Schedule appended to the plaint and the sale permission was granted. It appears that pursuant to the decree passed, the power of attorney holder of t he judgment debtors filed the application before the Deputy Commissioner seeking sale permission in respect of the land, which is mentioned in the Schedule to t he plaint, i.e. the land in respect of which decree was passed. The permission w as accordingly accorded by the Deputy Commissioner. That being the position, the sale deed is to be executed by the judgment debtors , which, however, the judgment debtors have, on one pretext or another, avoiding execution. Those facts were taken into consideration by the learned Executing Court while p assing the order dated 28th September, 2011, which does not require any interfer ence in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Cons titution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. It is needless to say that the interim order passed earlier stands automatically vacated on dismissal of the revision petition.