CRP 479/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.N.SARMA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr MH Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The subject matter of challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 11.1.2005 passed in Title Execution Case No.4/1995 by the learned Munsiff No.1, Barpeta. The order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the learned Executing court is also challenged in this revision petition along with the aforesaid order. By the impugned order dated 1 1.1.1995, the learned Executing court allowed the prayer of the respondent/profo rma defendant ,Sirajul Islam in the petition filed under Order 21 Rule 99,101 an d section 47 of the CPC holding that the decree passed in Title suit No.94/1990 is not binding on the respondent/proforma defendant. By the other order, the lea rned Executing court on the basis of the report of the Amin Commissioner directe d to demarcate the land of the applicant, Jalumuddin as prayed for. 3. The present petitioner as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No.94/1990 i n the court of Munsiff No.1, Barpeta praying for right, title and interest and f or khass possession evicting the defendants from an area of land measuring 1 big ha 9 lessa under Dag No.58 of KP patta No.180 of Village Moiramara under Ghilaja ri Mouza and also for 3 bigha 4 katha 17 lessa of Dag No.425 of the same pattta as well as the land measuring 1 bigha 18 lessa under Dag No.72 of the same patt a and mouza. In the aforesaid suit, the respondent/proforma defendant was implea ded as proforma defendant No.17. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise w as effected with the defendant No.1 and the proforma defendant/respondent did no t file written statement and it was directed to proceed exparte against him. Ho wever, the suit was dismissed for default of the plaintiff on 28.5.93. On the pr ayer for restoration of the suit, Misc Case No.32/93 was registered in which th e present respondent/proforma defendant was not impleaded and he has been left out and no notice was served upon him and on compromise with the defendant No.2, the dismissal order of the suit dated 28.5.93 was set aside on 16.5.94 and the suit was decree exparte against all the defendants except defendant No.1 on 7.1 1.94. In the decree, there is no mention about the present petitioner/proforma d efendant and a bare perusal of the decree does not disclose that the suit was de creed against him also. The decree was put into execution and the land in occup ation of the proforma defendant/respondent was sought to be handed over to the plaintiff. In the execution process, the proforma defendant/respondent resisted the same by filing an application under Order 21 Rule 99/101 CPC before the Exe cuting court. He contended that the area of the land measuring 1 bigha 0 katha 9 lessa covered by Dag No.58 under KP Patta No.180 village Moiramara, initially b elonged to one Majar Ali Mia ,who later on sold to one Halimon Nessa who in tur n , sold the suit land to the plaintiff Ismail Hussain. After purchase of the s uit land, the plaintiff got mutated his name in the year 1975 and thereafter sol d the scheduled land vide registered sale deed No.5185/77 to the proforma defend ant/respondent and delivered possession of the same. The name of the proforma defendant/respondent was also mutated in the year 1978 and since then he is in possession over the said area of the land. The petitioner filed objection agains t the petition filed by the proforma defendant/respondent. During the hearing of the petition both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective c laims. Though, the petitioner denied the aforesaid same of the suit land in favo ur of the proforma defendant, but the proforma defendant/respondent by filling t he certified copy of the sale deed and the copies of the Jamabandi as Exts. 1 an d 2 respectively, proved the aforesaid sale. In support of the claim, the profor ma defendant/respondent also examined three witnesses in support of his claim ,w ho duly proved the claim of the proforma defendant as regards the sale of the su it land measuring 1 bigha 9 lessa in favour of the petitioner by way of a regist ered sale deed. Thereafter when the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1990, the aforesaid land was also mutated by the plaintiff petitioner as his ow n land. From the aforesaid materials available on record, the learned Executing Court found that the proforma defendant/respondent having specific right, title and interest as well as possession for the aforesaid area of land, the decree i s not executable against him. When the suit was dismissed for default and in the restoration petition filed , the proforma defendant/respondent was not issued a ny notice, nor he was impleaded as a party respondent in the said restoration pe tition. In such a situation, the provisions of section 47 of the CPC would clea rly attract to remedies the grievance of the proforma defendant/respondent which has been raised by filing such application in the Executing proceeding itself b y him. While deciding the aforesaid application of the proforma defendant, the l earned Executing court on the basis of the materials and evidence adduced by th e parties came to the finding that the area of land measuring 1 bigha 9 lessa co vered by Dag No.58 patta No180 of village Moiramara was sold to the proforma def endant/respondent vide registered sale deed No.5158/77 by the plaintiff/petitio ner. In such a situation, the order passed on 11.1.2005 can not be said to have been passed illegally or in violation of jurisdictional authority of the Executi ng court. That apart the aforesaid order having been passed on 11.1.2005 which h as not been challenged for last six years, it has already has attained its fin ality. Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not allow such an inordinat e delay in challenging any order of the leaned trial court . The claim of the pe titioner that he was pursuing the matter in the trial court is not permissible u nder law. The learned trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error in n passing the impugned order dated 11.1.2005. 4. As regards the order dated 6.5.2010 which is also the subject matter of challenge in this revision petition, was passed upon perusal of the report of t he Amin Commissioner. The leaned Executing court allowed the prayer of the app licant Jalamuddin who also possessed the land under dag Nos.58 and 425 respectiv ely along with the plaintiff which fall a part of the decretal land and accordin gly the Executing court passed the aforesaid roder so that there is no impedimen t or overlapping any area of land in executing the decree. Accordingly the sai d order has been passed having jurisdiction of the learned Executing court and same does not call for any interference in this revision petition. The revision petition is totally a frivolous one which is liable to be dismissed which I her eby do. 5. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.