IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.61 of 2007 JAGO DEVI & ORS Versus BHAGIRATH PRASAD @ BHAGIRATH SINGH @ BACHCHA BABU ----------- 02. 01.05.2008 This civil revision has been filed on behalf of defendants-judgment debtors-petitioners challenging order dated 20.11.2006 by which the learned Execution Munsif, Patna, directed that the building in question be demolished and possession be given to the plaintiffs-decree holders-opposite parties in Execution Case No. 17 of 1988. This matter arises out of Title Suit No. 125 of 1969 which was filed by plaintiffs-opposites parties for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and alternatively for recovery of possession with respect to open space of land and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif-II, Patna vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.1979 against which the plaintiffs-decree holders filed Title Appeal No. 78 of 1979 which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge-XIII, Patna, vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.1987. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendants-petitioners filed Second Appeal No. 78 of 1988. In the second appeal an order dated 11.01.2000 was passed by this court on the application of the decree holders- opposite parties, who claimed that judgment debtors taking advantage of order of ad-interim injunction were making certain constructions over the suit property upon which it was ordered that - 2 - there was no reason to restrain the judgment debtors from making new constructions but if construction is made over the suit land the same shall be subject to result of this appeal and the judgment debtors-appellants shall not be entitled to claim any equity. The said second appeal was finally dismissed by this court, whereafter the judgment debtors moved to the Hon’ble Apex Court but there also they lost and finally execution proceeding was started. During the execution proceeding, a Pleader Commissioner was appointed, who submitted a report with specific finding that the constructions made on the land in suit were new. In the said circumstances, in view of the order of this court passed in Second Appeal No. 78 of 1988 as well as in view of the report of the Pleader Commissioner, the learned court below was quite justified in passing the impugned order. 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 and accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain,J.)