CRP 148/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr PP Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner/judgment-debtor by the present petition has challenged th e order dated 20.3.2010 passed by learned Munsiff No.1, Jorhat in Misc(J) Case N o.21/2009 arising out of T.Ex. Case No.2/2005, which has been initiated by the p resent opposite party/decree-holder for execution of the decree passed in Title Suit No.2/98 in respect of the land in dag no.2019 of PP Patta no.356 of Block n o.1 of Jorhat town. The contention of the petitioner/ judgment-debtor is that she is in poss ession of a portion of the land in dag no.2021, and the opposite party/decree-ho lder armed with the decree passed in Title Suit No.2/98, in respect of the dag n o.2021 of PP No.356, is making an attempt to evict her from the land in dag no.2 021, though there is no decree passed in respect of the land covered by the said dag. It appears from the impugned order dated 20.3.2010 passed by learned executing C ourt disposing of the application filed by the present petitioner u/s 47 read wi th Section 151 as also the application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC that the learned executing Court has directed that the decree would be executed, as passe d. That being the position, no interference with the order dated 20.3.2010 passed by the learned executing Court in the aforesaid Misc Case is required in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the executing Court can only execute the decree which has been put into executio n. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.