CRP 218/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. UC Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has entered appeara nce on behalf of the opposite party. By order dated 04.08.2011 service on them h as been accepted by this Court. The present petitioner as plaintiff instituted TS No.15/2000 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Barpeta, praying for a decree, inter alia, for declarat ion of his right, title and interest in the suit land for recovery of khas posse ssion thereof. The land was described in the schedule to the plaint. The opposit e party contested the suit by filing their written statement. Having regard to t he order impugned, it is considered inessential to dilate on the facts constitut ing the rival pleadings. Suffice it to mention that after a full trial, the suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 24.09.2004. The appeal preferred by the opposite party being Ti tle Appeal No.3/2005, was also dismissed on 09.12.2005. Meanwhile, the petitione r-plaintiff has instituted Title Execution Case No.29/2004 for the execution of the aforementioned decree. As according to him, the concerned Nazir of the execu ting court as well as the concerned Lat Mandal did not identify the boundaries o f the suit land for which the decree could not executed, the petitioner-plaintif f submitted an application before the learned court below for entrusting the tas k of demarcating the same (suit land) to the Lat Mandal of a different Circle. The learned Executing Court by the impugned order dated 17.06.2008 permitted the parties to measure the suit land and submit their respective findings before it for necessary orders. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court for redress. Mr. Rabha, has urged that the arrangement directed by the impugned order is unkn own in law, a decree having been passed by a court of civil jurisdiction. Accord ing to him, the learned Executing Court ought to have allowed the prayer made by the petitioner-plaintiff and in view of the persistent failure of the concerned Lat Mandal, it should have authorized a Lat Mandal of a different Circle to asc ertain the particulars of the suit land to facilitate the execution of the decre e. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a consideration of th e materials on record, this Court is inclined to concur with the submissions mad e. As, a decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff which has since been affirmed by the first Appellate Court, it was the solemn obligation o f the learned Executing Court to ensure that the same is executed at the earlies t. If the Nazir of the court concerned and the Lat Mandal entrusted with the wor k were not in a position to perform their duties, in this regard, necessary step s ought to have been taken by the learned Executing Court to secure the proper e xecution of the decree without delay. The permission to the parties with conflic ting interests to conduct a survey of the land involved and take measurement the reof, in the opinion of this Court, in no view of the matter, can be construed t o be an expedient step towards the execution of the decree as contemplated in la w. In the above view of the matter, the order dated 17.08.2008 is interfered with b eing unsustainable in law and on facts. The petitioner-plaintiff is hereby permi tted to file an appropriate application before the learned Executing Court, whic h would, on the receipt thereof, take immediate steps to ensure the execution of the decree at the earliest, however, strictly in accordance with law. On being queried by this Court, Mr. Rabha has submitted that the application wou ld be filed by the petitioner-plaintiff within a period of two (2) weeks. If the same is done, the learned Executing Court would endeavour to complete the process, as directed, within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.