MC 584/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the applican t as well as Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, who is the appellant in RSA No.260/2010. On the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the name of the opposite party No.2 is struck off from the list o f respondent, he being not a party in RSA No.260/2010. The applicant, who is the respondent No.1 in RSA No.260/ 2010, by the present application is praying for vacation/modification of the ord er dated 18th January, 2011 passed in Misc. Case No.3712/2010, arising out of th e aforesaid appeal, whereby and whereunder the operation of the judgment and dec ree dated 30th June, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nalbari in Title Ap peal No.1/2010 has been stayed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the decree passed in Title Suit No.9/2008 on 12th January, 2010, which was affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 30 th June, 2010 passed in Title Appeal No.1/2010 was put to execution and in fact the said execution proceeding has been disposed of on full satisfaction of the d ecree vide order dated 10th December, 2010 after handing over the possession of the decreetal land to the decree holder/applicant. The leaned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Court while passing the order dated 18th January, 2011 and the said Misc. Case was disposed of without even i ssuing any notice to the present applicant, who is the decree holder. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the order d ated 18th January, 2011 may be vacated/ modified as, by taking advantage of the said order, the appellant is trying to dispossess the applicant/decree holder. Refuting such submission, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the entire decree passed in the aforesaid s uit has not been satisfied and only the possession of the land covered by Dag No s.703 and 711 measuring 2 Bighas 1 Katha 2 Lechas was handed over to the applica nt/ decree holder and not the land covered by Dag Nos.590 and 46 of KP Patta No. 59 measuring 1 Bigha 3 Kathas 11 Lechas, over which the decree is still to be ex ecuted and as such, the interim order dated 18th January, 2011 may not be vacate d. It appears that vide order dated 18th January, 2011, the Misc. Case No.3712/2010 has been disposed of after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the applicant in the said Misc. Case and without issuing any notic e on the respondents therein, which includes the preset applicant. By the said order, the operation of the aforesaid decree dated 30th June, 2010 passed in Tit le Appeal No.1/2010 has bee stayed. It appears from the order dated 10th December, 2010 that the aforesaid decree passed was put to execution in Title Execution Case No.3/2 010 and the said execution proceeding has been disposed of on full satisfaction of the decree. The Nazir’s report submitted on execution of the warrant of poss ession also reveals that the decree, as passed, has been executed and the presen t applicant has been put to possession, pursuant to the decree passed. It is not in dispute that the land measuring 1 Bigha 3 K athas 11 Lechas covered by Dag Nos.590 and 46 of KP Patta No.59 of village-III N o. Bhelamari of Pub-Barkhetri, Mouza-Barkhetri is also the part of the decreetal land. Since the aforesaid execution proceeding has been closed on satisfaction of the decree vide order dated 10th December, 2010, the content ion of the opposite party/appellant that the part of the decree has not been exe cuted, cannot be accepted. Since the entire decree has been executed, as reflected in the order dated 10th December, 2010 passed in Title Execution Case No.3/2010, there is nothing left to execute the decree further and consequently to say exe cution of the impugned judgment and decree. In view of the above, the order dated 18th January, 2011 passed in Misc. Case No.3712/2010 stands vacated. Misc. Case stands allowed.