CRP 270/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H. N. SHARMA Heard Mr J Handique, learned for the petitioner. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constit ution of India read with section 115, CPC, challenging the order dated 7.8.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr Division) No 1, Dibrugarh, as executing Co urt in Execution Case No 2/2006. The decree holder obtained a decree on 7.4.97 i n TS No 39/88. The said decree was for khas possession of the suit land from th e defendant petitioner. The decree holder / respondent put the decree in executi on by filing Execution Case No 2/2006 in which the judgment debtor filed an appl ication under section 47, CPC, claiming that the decree is a nullity in view of the fact that there is no proper description of the suit land which is vague and hit by the provisions of Order 7, rule 3, CPC; that the decree was not properly drawn up as per Order 20, Rule 9, CPC; that the suit was incorrectly valued and the decree holder has no possession of the same and that while discussing the I ssue Nos 3 and 5 in the judgment and order dated 7.4.97 passed in TS No 39/88, t he learned trial Court has considered filing of an earlier suit, ie, TS No 23/68 and passed the decree, in fact, the decree passed in TS No 23/68 has attained i ts finality. The learned Executing Court after hearing the learned counsel fo r the parties, observed that there is no vagueness in the decree and it is not h it by the provisions of Order 7, rule 3, CPC and not executable a submitted. It was clarified that the provisions of Order 7, Rule 3, CPC, are held to be direct ory one and not mandatory. The learned trial Court also found that the decree it self being for recovery of khas possession is indicative of the fact that the de cree holder is not in possession of the suit land. It was also held that the dec ree holder duly filed the execution case. On such consideration, the executing C ourt rejected the application filed under section 47, CPC, objecting the executi on of the decree. I have perused the materials on record including the impugned or der. On such perusal of documents and materials on record, I do not find that th e learned trial Court committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the petiti on filed by the petitioner under section 47, CPC. The impugned order dated 7.8.2 006 was perfectly passed and no error of law or of jurisdiction was committed by the learned trial Court in passing the same. However, the impugned the order da ted 7.8.2006 does not decide any right of any of the parties and it is just a fo rmal order. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit i n this petition and accordingly stands rejected.