IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 224 of 2007 Md. Shafique @ Safique son of late Md. Ibrahim, resident of Mohalla Lalbagh, P.O. Purnia City, P.S. Sadar, District Purnea…………………………Defendant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Mostt. Bhakat Maya @ Bhagta Maya wife of late Bhakat Bahadur 2. Ashok Kumar son of Late Bhakat Bahadur 3. Amrendra Kumar son of late Bhakat Bahadur 4. Bijay Kumar son of late Bhakat Bahadur All are residents of village Khushkibagh, P.S. Sadar, P.O. Khushkibagh, District Purnea 5. Baby Devi wife of Hemant Chatri, resident of Purnea Jute Mill, P.O. & District Katihar 6. Tara Devi wife of Dilip Chatri, resident of Mohalla Lallchai, P.O. & District Katihar. ….Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties. For the petitioner : M/s S.A. Nasarwarsi and Raj Nandan Prasad, Advocates. For the opposite Parties : None. ----------- 02/ 07.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 05.12.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-V, Purnea dismissed Misc. Case No.03 of 2005 filed by the petitioner under the provision of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. From the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements made in the civil revision as well as the materials on record, it transpires that Title Suit No.143 of 2001 was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties for specific performance of contract and the said suit was decreed by the learned trial court on 13.09.2004. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial 2 court defendant-petitioner filed F.A. No.288 of 2004 in this court but due to pecuniary jurisdiction the same was sent to the lower appellate court where it was numbered as Title Appeal No.77 of 2006 and is pending for disposal before the learned District Judge, Purnea. 4. It transpires that for execution of the decree of the trial court the plaintiffs filed Execution Case No.06 of 2004 and much thereafter the defendant-petitioner field Misc. case No.03 of 2005 under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for determining the execution case as not maintainable on the ground that the decree was not executable. The said miscellaneous case was dismissed by the executing court vide the impugned order after full consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case holding that the area and boundary of the suit land had been clearly mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint of the original suit as well as in the decree under execution and no such objection was ever raised in the suit and hence at this stage the defendant-judgment debtor had no right to challenge the description of the land, specially the boundary of the land given in Schedule-A of the plaint. 5. It was also found that the area of the land mentioned therein was enough for the presumption that the deed had been executed for the area of which the decree had been obtained by the decree holder of the suit. Furthermore, the court also found that, in the execution case in which the miscellaneous petition was filed, the sale deed had already been presented for registration in the office of 3 the Sub-Registrar, Purnea and hence there was no question of stay of the execution of the sale deed or dismissal of the execution case as prayed by the defendant-judgment debtor and accordingly the said miscellaneous case was rightly dismissed. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)