IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6847 of 2008 1. Achuta Nand Singh 2. Sachita Nand Singh Both Sons of Late Chedi Singh, R/o Village- Charpokhari, P.S.- Charpokhari, Anchal-Charpokhari, District-Bhojpur. ……….Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Sub-divisional Officer, Piro Sub Division, Piro, Bhojpur. 2. The Circle Officer, Charpokhari, Bhojpur. 3. The Officer-in- Charge, Charpokhari P.S., Charpokhari, Bhojpur. 4. Jogni Devi, W/o Patiram Singh, R/o Village-Bibipur, P.S.-Samri, P.S. and Anchal-Paliganj, District-Patna. 5. Singheshwar Singh, S/o Late Jai Narain Singh, R/o Dumoriyam, P.S.- Dumarian, P.S. and Anchal-Behea, District-Bhojpur. 6. Dwarika Singh, S/o Late Sheopujan Singh 7. Chandeshwar Singh 8. Laxaman Singh 9. Subhash Singh Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are sons of Dwarika Singh, R/o Village- Morath, P.O.-Siyarampur, P.S.-Charpokhari, District- Bhojpur. 10. Tija Devi, W/o Ram Sarin Singh, R/o Village- Bibipur, P.O.-Bibipur, P.S. and Anchal-Paligram, District-Patna. ………… Respondents. For the petitioners : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Advocate. Mr. Anshuman, Advocate. For the Respondent no. 4: Mr. Ganapti Trivedi, Advodate. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. A.Amanullah, G.A.-9. ----------- 5. 06-10-2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and its authorities and learned counsel for Respondent no. 4. 2. This writ petition has been filed for restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in dispute in which they are coming in possession for a long period i.e. since purchasing it from Tija Devi (Respondent no. 10). 3. The suit has a chequred history. Title Suit No. 150 2 of 1973 was filed for partition by Respondent no. 4. In the said suit Respondent nos. 5 to 10 were defendants, out of whom Tija Devi (Respondent no. 10) was Defendant No. 4. The said suit was decreed by Sub-ordinate Judge-II, Arrah vide judgment and preliminary decree dated 07.07.1975 in which defendant no. 4 was given half share in Schedule-Ka property and defendant no. 3 got 1/30th share. The said preliminary decree was never challenged and hence proceeding of final decree was started. Pleader commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report after Takhtabandi and finally on 21.05.1977 (Annexure-5) final decree was prepared. For execution of the said decree, plaintiffs filed Execution Case No. 22/1977 (Annexure-6). 4. The petitioners claiming to be the purchaser of the land from aforesaid Tija Devi (Defendant no.-4-Respondent no. 10) filed T.S. No. 131 of 1986 for setting aside the final decree passed in T.S.No. 150 of 1973 which according to the petitioners was illegal, collusive and bad as the share of widow Tija Devi (Defendant No. 4) had been interfered with which was against the preliminary decree. Admittedly, the said T.S. No. 131 of 1986 was dismissed for default. 5. Thereafter, Misc. Case No. 22 of 1997 was filed by the petitioners for restoration of T.S. No. 131 of 1986. In the said miscellaneous case, petitioners filed an application under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was rejected up to the High Court. It further transpires that thereafter petitioners filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure 3 on 28-01-2007 in Execution Case No. 22 of 1977 claiming that they have planted seesam, mango and other trees on the purchased land and hence, the judgment and final decree is not binding upon them. However, no order has been passed on the said application as yet. 6. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that no appeal was filed against the preliminary decree or even against the final decree either by Defendant No. 4 or by any one else and hence the said judgment and final decree has attained its finality in the year 1977 itself. 7. It further transpires that after nine years, the petitioners filed T.S. No. 131 of 1986 for setting aside the final decree dated 21.05.1977 challenging it as illegal, collusive and bad, but the said suit having been filed after such a long delay and then being allowed to be dismissed for default clearly shows the attitude of the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners filed Misc. Case No. 22 of 1997 but although 13 years have passed, the said case is still pending without the petitioners making any effort for its early disposal. 8. The earlier application of the petitioners filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the C.P.C. having been dismissed up to the High Court filing of a fresh application on 28.01.2007 in the Execution Case under Order XXI Rule 97 of the C.P.C. appears to be a nefarious act of the petitioners in addition to their earlier efforts for delay of the execution case, which is pending for 33 years long. 9. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed and 4 executing court is directed to expedite the execution case to reach to its ultimate end in accordance with the final decree. Sujit (S.N.Hussain,J.)