CRP 54/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B LOKUR The respondents filed a civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Divis ion) No. II in Karimganj, being Title Suit No. 307/1994. The prayers made in the plaint were, inter alia, for a declaration that the proposed construction of sa nitary latrine, urinal, bathroom of the defendants in pursuance of a permission accorded by the Chairman of the Karimganj Municipal Board vide Memo No. 82/94/95 dated 5/11/1994 is not made under the statutory provisions of the Assam Municip al Act and the Standing Rules apart from being unhygienic, causing nuisance and prejudicial to the plaintiffs and other occupants of their family. The responden ts also sought a declaration that the permission mentioned above is illegal, fra udulent, beyond jurisdiction, in operative and ab initio void. The suit was contested by the defendants therein and eventually a decree was passed on 29/9/2007 and the declaration as prayed for was granted. During the pendency of the suit, the present petitioner purchased the pr operty in dispute and also moved an application for impleadment. That applicatio n was taken up for consideration and by order dated 29/11/2005, the application was dismissed. At this stage, it may be mentioned that neither the order dated 29/11/20 05 was challenged by the petitioner nor was the decree dated 29/9/2007 challenge d by the defendants in the suit. Under the circumstances, the respondents moved an application for execut ion of the decree. The petitioner moved an application in the Title Execution No. 4/2009 being Misc . Case No. 189/2010. The application was for setting aside the decree in view of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 and Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code of Civil P rocedure. This application was rejected by the Executing Court by an order dated 1/2/2011 in view of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 102 of the CPC. Separately in the execution proceedings, the Executing Court passed anot her order on the same date i.e. 1/2/2011 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner to the execution of the decree. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition c hallenging both the orders dated 1/2/2011. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the decree is inexecuta ble inasmuch as the Executing Court has directed the Nazir to execute the decree after proper identification of the decretal latrine, bathroom and urinals. It i s submitted that there is in fact a delegation of powers of the Executing Court in favour of the Nazir. It is submitted that this is not permissible. Even other wise, it is contended, that the suit property having not been properly identifie d, the decree cannot be executed. I am not in agreement with the view expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears on a reading of Order 21 Rule 102 of the CPC that the pe titioner is not entitled to be heard in the matter having purchased the suit pro perty during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner was fully aware or atleast is deemed to have been aware of the contents of the plaint as well as the proce edings pending before the learned Trial Judge. Yet the petitioner took the risk of purchasing the suit property. That apart, with regard to the lack of adequate description of the prope rty in question, I am of the opinion that the prayer in the plaint is quite clea r and the suit property has been sufficiently identified by reference to the per mission accorded by the Chairman of the Karimganj Municipal Board. The property has been fully described in the Memo No. 82/94/95 dated 5/11/1994 and it is this property with respect to which the declaration has been given by the learned Tr ial Judge. Under the circumstances, both the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are rejected. The revision petition is dismissed. Interim order of stay stands vacated.