IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.23 of 2009 SATRUGHAN PRASAD SAH @ SATRUGHAN PRASAD & ANR Versus HARIHAR PRASAD & ANR ----------- 2 15.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order directing issuance of a writ for delivery of possession in an execution case of the year 1989 pertaining to a suit of the year 1971, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. From the application filed by the petitioners themselves dated 11.7.2008, it would be borne out that in terms of the objection of the petitioners as with regard to the subject matter of the disputed land being confined to one and half dhoors, the decree holder had made amendment in the schedule-1 of the execution petition and the same was also allowed by an order dated 30.1.2006. If these facts are admitted facts as they must treated to be, since they have been stated in the application filed by the petitioners themselves in the court below, nothing remains for the court to adjudicate as with regard to the execution of the decree. The apprehension of the petitioners, therefore that something more than what was decreed will be executed by way of delivery of possession is wholly misconceived. That being so, there is no merit in this application and the same is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)