CRP 346/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. M. H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, who are judgment -debtors in Title Execution Case No. 1/2009, pending in the Court of the learned District Judge, Morigaon. This revision has been filed by the judgment-debtors against the order, dated 18.08.2010, passed by the learned District Judge, Morigaon, in Title Execu tion Case No. 1/2009, whereby the decree, dated 11.08.1994, granted in Title Sui t No. 45/92, and affirmed by the order, dated 30.05.2007, passed in First Appeal No. 90/94, has been allowed to be executed and the petition of the judgment-deb tors (i.e., the present petitioners) raising objections to the execution of the said decree, has been rejected. The predecessor-in-interest of the decree holders, who are the opposite- party in this revision, instituted a suit, which gave rise to Title Suit No. 58/ 2990, the case of the sole plaintiff being, in brief, that he had the right, tit le and interest over the land of Schedule ’Ka’, described in the plaint, and had also been in possession thereof, but defendant No. 1 had tried to dispossess th e plaintiff from an area of 3 Lechas of the said land of Schedule ’Ka’, the said 3 Lechas of the land having been described in Schedule ’Kha’ to the plaint, and had also tried to construct a house by engaging some labourers and, as there wa s likelihood of breach of peace, the plaintiff filed an application, which gave rise to MR Case No. 528/1970, under Section 107/145 CrPC, and the land of Schedu le ’Kha’ was directed to be attached. As the proceeding was dropped on 17.05.1 971, the plaintiff filed a revision, which gave rise to CM No. 34(N-2) 71, but t he revision was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon, by order, dated 12.08.1971. The plaintiff accordingly prayed for declaration of his right s, title and interest over 1 Bigha of the suit land, as described in Schedule ’K a’ of the plaint and also confirmation of his possession thereof with further pr ayer that the defendants or the encroachers should be evicted from the house sta nding on the dispossessed portion of the land and khas possession thereof be giv en to the plaintiff in due course and that the defendants be permanently restrai ned from entering into, or encroaching upon, the suit land. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court, by judgment and order, dated 11.08.1994, giving relief to the plaintiff as under: (a) The right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the 1(one) Bigha of sui t land is declared and possession over the suit land by the plaintiff is confirm ed as given in Schedule ’Ka’ of the plaint. (b) The defendants of the encroachers through them be evicted by demolishing the constructions and houses thereon etc. from the dispossessed portion of land (as alleged possession claimed by the defendants) and khas possession be given to t he plaintiff in due course of law. (c) The defendants are restrained permanently not to enter or encroach upon the suit land possessed by the plaintiff. In terms of the relief, so granted, a decree was drawn, which, read as u nder: This suit is decreed on contest against the defendants with costs as prayed by the plaintiff. (a) The right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the 1(one) Bigha of suit land is declared and possession over the suit land by the plaintiff is confirme d as given in Schedule ’Ka’ of the plaint. (b) The defendants of the encroachers through them be evicted by demolishing the constructions and houses thereon etc. from the dispossessed portion of land (as alleged possession claimed by the defendants) and khas possession be given to t he plaintiff in due course of law. (c) The defendants are restrained permanently not to enter or encroach upon the suit land possessed by the plaintiff. Schedule -’A’ A plot of land measuring one (1) bigha file (5) lechas covered by Dag No. 754 of Public Prosecutor 1050 of Mouza Morigaon, District Morigaon, is bounded by - North :- Kulsing Deka, East :- Sumeswar Deka, Um-mati West:- Morigaon, Lawduruha - Puwatali Road Schedule - ’B’ In the description of Schedule ’A’ Northern area of 3 lechas of land, North:- Kulsing South:- Other land regarding litigation of the plaintiff East:- Sumeswar Deka West:- PWD Road In course of time, the decree, so passed, was, though challenged in appe al, was affirmed by the learned appellate Court. The opposite party herein, the reafter, put the decree into execution. The present petitioners, as judgment-de btors, resisted the execution proceeding by contending, inter alia, that there i s no decree for recovery of khas possession from the entire land of Schedule ’Ka ’ and that the decree cannot, therefore, be executed by evicting the present pet itioners from the land of Schedule ’Ka’. This contention has been turned down b y the learned Executing Court on the ground that the declaration of the title wa s in respect of the entire land of Schedule ’Ka’ and that while granting confirm ation of possession over the land of Schedule ’Ka’, the Court also decreed the s uit for eviction of the defendants by demolishing the construction/houses, which have been raised by the defendants, and, therefore, there is no impediment in e xecuting the decree. Considering the fact that the declaration, under the decree, has been gi ven in favour of the decree holders-opposite party over the entire land of Sched ule ’Ka’ and under the decree, the recovery of possession has already been direc ted by evicting the defendants/encroachers by demolishing the constructions/hous es raised thereon, it cannot be said that the execution of the decree, as sought to be done, is contrary to the decree or running against the decree. Situated thus, it is clear that the resistance to the execution of the decree, w hich the present petitioners, as judgment-debtors, have offered, has no substanc e and that the learned Executing Court was within the ambit of law in rejecting the objection, which had been raised against the execution of the decree by the present petitioners as judgment-debtors. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court fi nds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This revision, therefore, f ails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.