IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1225 of 2006 PRATAP KUMAR @ PRATAP TANTI & ORS. Versus BIJUL TANTI & ANR. ----------- 5 16.12.2008 Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Duivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. T.N. Maitin, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. It is a suit for eviction filed in the year 1986 which is still awaiting its finality by way of delivery of possession and as usual, technicalities again rule the field at the cost of substantive justice. It is not in doubt that the suit in question was initially dismissed by the trial court on and the suit was eventually decreed in terms of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 18.6.1993. The judgment dated 18.6.1993 is itself testimony to the fact that the parties had agreed that there was existence of same holding no. 672 which was distinguishable from holding no. 665. That is how the parties had agreed that the suit be decreed in respect of the suit house as being holding no. 672 and therein, it was also clarified that defendants-petitioners’ possession over any part of holding no. 665 will not be disturbed in any manner. Normally such a clear compromise decree passed by the 2 lower appellate court should not have permitted to keep the matter pending but then the technicalities in the civil litigation always have a precedence to the substantial justice and that is how when the execution case was levied in the year 1995, an objection came from those very defendant-petitioners who had earlier been party to the compromise decree passed by the lower appellate court that as a matter of fact, there was no holding no. 672 identifiable and as such, the decree was worth being thrown in the waste paper basket. The matter ultimately traveled to this Court when the Execution Case No. 3 of 1995 had been dismissed by accepting the submission of the defendant-petitioners and this Court while disposing of the said C.R. No. 1926 of 1996 by an order dated 15.10.1998 had not only set aside the impugned order dismissing the execution case but had also directed the executing court to take help of survey knowing pleader commissioner for executing this decree. The said Pleader Commissioner had eventually submitted his report on 13.6.1999 on which again an objection was filed by the defendant-petitioners on 7.8.1999 wherein again they raised a specific objection that the report of the pleader commissioner should be rejected because the pleader commissioner had found two separate holdings respectively with decree holder 3 and judgment debtor which could not be co-related with the findings recorded in the report of the pleader commissioner. It is this objection of the pleader commissioner which has been decided by the impugned order by holding that the petitioner had filed a frivolous objection and in fact once it was clear that there was holding no. 672 in existence, the decree passed by the lower appellate court was very well executable. Mr. Duivedi, learned senior counsel however, would contend that the petitioners have no objection if the decree passed by the lower appellate court pertaining to holding no. 672 is executed without disturbing any portion of holding no. 665. In the opinion of this court the apprehension of the petitioner to that extent is wholly misconceived because right from the very beginning, the lower appellate court way back in its judgment in the year 1993 had made it abundantly clear that no portion of the holding no. 665 shall be disturbed while effecting delivery of possession of holding no. 672. That apart, as to which portion is holding no. 665 and holding no. 672 is clearly mentioned in the pleadings on record. By the impugned order, all that has been done, is that after rejecting the objection of the petitioner, the executing court has proceeded for effecting delivery of possession and for 4 that purpose, the office has been directed to issue warrant of delivery of possession. Such order was infact required to be passed because as noted above, the execution proceedings is pending for almost last fourteen years and therefore, this Court would not allow any further indulgence and would also not interfere with the impugned order. This Court would therefore direct the court below to ensure that the decree passed by the lower appellate court with regard to the holding no. 672 is executed within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the proceedings of fourteen years old execution case is closed. . With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision Application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)