CRP 215/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. GP Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Als o heard Mr. T Islam, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Challenge in this revision petition is made to the order dated 08.06.201 1 passed in Misc. (J) Case NO. 09 of 2011 arising out of Title Execution Case No . 05 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the learned Executing Court dismissed the ap plication filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ref erred to as ’the Code’) holding that the decree passed by the trial court is exe cutable in terms of the decree obtained by the decree holder. 3. A brief facts of the case is narrated hereinbelow; The predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties filed a suit being Title Suit NO. 22 of 1977 against the predecessors-in-interest of the pe titioners in the court of Assistant District Judge at Nagaon for right, title an d interest and delivery of Khas possession of a plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 8 Lechas which is described in the schedule of the plaint. The relief sought f or in the plaint was for a decree of right, title and interest over the Schedule ’Ka’ land and for recovery of Khas possession thereof on account of raising of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court and also because of the notifica tion issued by the Government of Assam notifying Morigaon as a separate district , the said title suit was transferred to the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Mor igaon and renumbered as T.S. No. 24 of 1993 whereof the learned Munsiff decreed the suit on 18.04.1994. 4. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree an appeal being T.A. No. 7 of 2004 was taken on the file of the learned District Judge, Morigaon and the le arned District Judge, Morigaon dismissed the appeal which has further been dism issed by this court in Second Appeal No. 121 of 1995. 5. The decree was put into execution being Title Execution No. 5 of 2003. I n the execution application the opposite parties herein inserted the names of t he so called boundary men of the decreetal suit land in the Schedule which was o bjected to by the petitioners under Section 47 of the Code opposing insertion o f boundary men of the Schedule land and prayed for dismissal of the execution p roceeding. Thereafter the opposite parties filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code which was dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dat ed 15.06.2004. 6. Thereafter, the opposite parties filed a fresh execution petition which was numbered as T.E. No. 4 of 2004 before the Executing Court whereon vide order dated 21.12.2004, the Executing Court has held that fresh execution proceeding was hit under Section 11 of the Code and accordingly dismissed the execution pr oceeding. 7. The opposite parties took up the matter in revision before this court in CRP No. 23 of 2005 wherein the court set aside the order dated 15.06.2004 gran ting the opposite parties’ application for correction holding that original Exec ution Petition would revive and the same is maintainable and accordingly the le arned Executing Court restored the T.E. No. 5 of 2003 in its original file allow ing the decree holder to amend the execution petition by striking off the bound ary of the schedule of the decreetal land in compliance of the order dated 23.04 .2010 passed in CRP No. 23 of 2005. 8. The petitioners thereafter filed a petition under Section 47 of the Code with Order XX Rule 6 including Section 151 of the Code which is registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 09 of 2011 in the T.E. No. 05 of 2003 contending inter alia that the decreetal land is not al all identifiable for lack of boundary and the decree holder/opposite parties have wrongly mentioned a different Dag number of the decreetal land appertaining as Dag No. 134 instead of Dag No. 13 in the Sc hedule A contrary to the decree, as such the decree is not executable to which an objection was put on the file. 9. The learned Executing Court vide order dated 08.06.2011 dismissed the pe tition being Misc. (J) No. 9 of 2011 holding that the decree is not at all ambi guous and the decree is very much executable citing the provision of Order VII Rule 3 of the Code against which the revision application has been filed. 10. I have heard Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the judgment deb tors/petitioners alongwith the averment made in the plaint wherein relief sought for was for a decree of right, title and interest and recovery of possession of Schedule K land described in the plaint. This is a suit of 1977 and on transfer to the Court of Munsiff No.1 at Morigaon it was renumbered as T.S. 24 of 1993 w hich was decreed in favour of the decree holder. On appeal to the learned Distri ct Judge, Morigaon, it was dismissed and on further appeal to this court it was dismissed. The decree holder put the execution in pursuance to the order dated 2 3.04.2010 passed in CRP No. 23 of 2005. 11. The ground of attack by the petitioners lacks jurisdictional facts requ ire to be interfered with more so, when Order VII Rule 3 provides that where th e subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it and, in case such proper ty can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or su rvey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers and accordingly the de cree holders amended the execution petition by striking off the boundary of the schedule of the decreetal land in compliance of the order dated 23.04.2010 pas sed in CRP No. 23 of 2005. There is no perversity found in the impugned order d ated 08.06.2011 passed in Misc. (J) No. 9 of 2011 by the learned Executing Court . 12. There is no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 13. The Executing Court shall put the execution of the decree forthwith.