CRP 401/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners/judgment debtors and Mr. A.R. Banerjee, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. P. Chakraborty appea ring for the respondents/decree holders. The judgment debtors by the present petition have sought to invoke the j urisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in chal lenging the order dated 10.09.2009 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Cachar at Silchar, in Title Execution No.13/1987, whereby and whereunder the petition No. 688/2009 filed by the judgment debtors has been rejected. The respondents instituted Title Suit No.74/1982 for eviction of the pre decessor-in-interest of the present petitioners from a suit room described in th e schedule to the plaint. The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 29.10.19 84. The said judgment though was challenged by the judgment debtors/ defendants in appeal and thereafter in civil revision petition, those were also dismissed b y affirming the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. Title Execution No.1 3/1987 thereafter was filed by the present respondents for execution of the decr ee passed in the said suit. The judgment debtors, however, are successful in delaying execution of t he said decree passed in the year 1984, by filing one application after another. Number of applications were filed in the execution proceeding by the judgment d ebtors from time to time, even challenging the executability of the decree conte nding that the suit property is not identifiable. All those applications were re jected and though carried to this Court, those revision petitions were also reje cted. Despite that the decree holders have not been able to enjoy the fruit of t he decree because of the dilatory practice adopted by the judgment debtors and f or putting blocks in executing the decree. It appears from the materials made available on record that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in CRP No.306/1996, a writ for delivery of posses sion was issued on 18.04.2009, which, however, was returned unexecuted with a re port by the Nazir dated 19.05.2009 contending that the boundary in the eastern a nd northern side do not tally with the boundary given in the plaint, though the Nazir in his report has specifically mentioned that the suit room is identifiabl e. Armed with such a report from the Nazir, the judgment debtors then filed the petition No.688/2009 contending that since the eastern and northern boundary of the suit room is different from the boundary given in the plaint, the decree is not executable. Such contention has been rejected by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 10.09.2009 holding that as it is evident from the report of th e Nazir that the suit room is identifiable, difference in the northern and easte rn boundary would not come into the way of executing decree in respect of the su it room. Hence the present petition. It has been contended by Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners/ judgment debtors that it is a settled position of law that the decree is to be e xecuted in respect of the suit property and in the instant case it appears from the report of the Nazir dated 19.05.2009 that the northern and eastern boundary differs from the boundary given in the plaint, the decree in terms of the writ o f delivery of possession issued cannot be executed. Per contra, Mr. Banerjee, learned Sr. counsel submits that it is evident from the report of the Nazir dated 19.05.2009 that the suit room is identifiabl e and change of the northern and the eastern boundary would not affect the ident ity of the suit room. The report of the Nazir dated 19.05.2009 reveals in clear terms that the suit room in respect of which the decree was passed is identifiable. The Nazir, however, for the reasons best known to him has refused to execute the decree an d deliver the possession of the suit room in terms of the writ issued, on the gr ound that there is difference on the eastern and northern boundary. Difference i n the description of boundary at the time of filing the suit (in the year 1982) and the date of execution (in the year 2011) is not material when the suit room is identifiable and there is no dispute in that regard. When the suit room is id entifiable as per the decree passed, there was no occasion on the part of the Na zir not to execute the decree and deliver the possession in respect of the suit room to the decree holders pursuant to the writ of delivery of possession issued . The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be e xercised to prevent the abuse of process of the Court and for ends of justice. I n the instant case, the judgment debtors, as noticed above, are successful in pu tting the blocks in execution of the decree though the decree was passed in the year 1984 and thereby depriving the decree holders from enjoying the fruit of th e decree. In the event, the impugned order is interfered with, it would be again st the interest of justice. Hence the present petition filed under Article 227 o f the Constitution of India deserves dismissal with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be de posited by the judgment debtors/petitioners before the Executing Court on the da te of appearance fixed by this Court by this order. The said amount shall be rel eased to the decree holders. The Executing Court is directed to get the decree e xecuted forthwith and report compliance to the Registry of this Court. The parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 09.01.2 012. The petition is accordingly dismissed with cost.