IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.293 of 2009 Vijay Kumar Sharma @ Vijay Sharma, son of late Sri Lal Sharma, resident of Mohalla/village Chowa Bagh, P.S. Kasim Bazar, District Munger …Judgment Debtor-Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Usha Devi, wife of Prakash Sah, resident of Mohalla/village Chowa Bagh, P.S. Kasim Bazar, District Munger …Decree holder-Opposite Party 2. Girdhar Prasad Sharma, son of late Horil Mistry, resident of Mohalla/village Chowa Bagh, P.S. Kasim Bazar, District Munger …Plaintiff-Decree holder-Opposite Party. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S. K. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate and Mrs. Malika Mazumdar, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties : M/s S. S. Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate and Shailendra Kr. Dwivedi,Advocate --------- 04/ 23.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant- judgment debtor-petitioner challenging order dated 30.01.2009, by which learned Munsif 1st, Munger ordered for delivery of possession of the premises in question, namely, holding no. 39 in Eviction Execution Case No. 6 of 2003. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 25 of 1991, which was filed by opposite party no.2 for eviction of the petitioner from a part of municipal holding no. 39 on the ground of expiry of the fixed period of tenancy. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 12.02.1998 by the learned court below, but the said judgment and decree of eviction was never challenged. 4. It transpires that for execution of the aforesaid decree of eviction, Eviction Execution Case No.6 of 2003(6of 2004) 2 was filed by the plaintiff, in which an objection petition under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the defendant challenging maintainability of the execution case. The said objection petition was numbered as Misc. Case No. 21 of 2004 and was allowed by the learned court below vide order dated 21.11.2005 holding that the execution case was not maintainable as the property purchased by the purchaser-decree holder did not tally with the land in question. 5. Against the aforesaid order of the executing court, the purchaser-decree holder filed Civil Revision No. 413 of 2006, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2008 after hearing both sides and with consent of the parties this Court directed that the petitioner (purchaser) would first make the original plaintiff-decree holder a party to the execution case and the petitioner (purchaser) would also produce the Municipal Survey Khatian of holding no. 39 and if upon hearing of the decree holder as well as comparing the entries in Municipal Survey Khatian with respect to holding no.39, the executing court was satisfied that the decree sought to be executed was in respect of that very house, which was subject matter of eviction suit, the court below would pass an appropriate order directing delivery of possession to the petitioner, but if the court below was still in doubt with regard to identification of the property, it shall have option to appoint a Pleader Commissioner at the cost of the petitioner (purchaser). 6. In view of the aforesaid order of this Court, the 3 learned court below considered the entire matter in detail and also appointed a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner, who submitted his report on 06.01.2009 after inspecting and measuring the suit premises in presence of both the parties and gave its finding with regard to identification of the suit premises. However, on comparison of the two boundaries, the learned court below found that both were the same. The learned court below also found that the photo copy of the register of demand and collection of municipality as well as the photo copy of new or improved holdings for assessment during the quarter contained holding no. 39 and from these documents it also transpired that Muksuspur and Chaubagh were name of the same place and there was no difference between them and furthermore holding no.39 was also mentioned in the demand and collection register of the municipality. Thus, after full consideration of the materials on record, the learned court below found that the decree sought to be executed in the execution case was in respect of the same house, which was the subject matter of the suit, which belonged to the plaintiff. 7. It is quite apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that the learned court below has passed the impugned order after full compliance of the order of this Court dated 03.07.2008 passed in Civil Revision No. 413 of 2006 and after full consideration of all the relevant materials and aspects of the matter. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the 4 learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. The court below is directed to expedite the matter. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )