IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1286 of 2002 NAJMA KARIM Versus AZIMABAD HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD WITH C.R. No. 1287 OF 2002 ABDUL KARIM AHMAD Versus AZIMABAD HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD ----------- 12 8.7.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anisur Rahman, counsel for the opposite party No.2. Reference in this connection may be made to the earlier order of the Court dated 30th October, 2007 wherein upon an impression created by one of the appearing counsel for the opposite party that he had no longer the instruction to appear in this case, this court had issued fresh notice to the opposite parties. The opposite parties despite service of notice have not chosen to appear and therefore these two applications are being disposed of on the basis of submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. In both the Civil Revision applications the Court below by the impugned order dated 25.6.2002 has held the decree to be not executable on the ground that it was not possible to identify the land without any boundary specially when out of 2 the purchased area, One Katha was sold to one Jamil Asghar and 2 and ½ katha to Shahnaz Siddique by the petitioner prior to the date of the impugned order. In the opinion of this Court Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not give such a scope to the executing Court to go behind the decree or disregard the decree altogether. It is a well settled position in law that the Court has to make all possible efforts to execute the decree instead of searching flaws in the decree. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Pratibha Singh and Anr. Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad and another reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 643 wherein the Apex Court had laid down the law as follows :- “When the suit as to immovable property has been decreed and the property is not definitely identified, the defect in the Court record caused by overlooking of provisions contained in O.7 R.3 and O.20. R. 3 of the C.P.C. is capable of being cured. After all a successful plaintiff should not be deprived of the fruits of decree. Resort 3 can be had to S. 152 or S. 47 of the C.P.C. depending on the facts and circumstances of each case- which of the two provisions would be more appropriate, just and convenient to invoke. Being an inadvertent error, not affecting the merits of the case. It may be corrected under S. 152 of the C.P.C. by the Court which passed the decree by supplying the omission. Alternatively, the exact description of decretal property may be ascertained by the Executing Court as a question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree within the meaning of S. 47, C.P.C. A decree of a competent Court should not, as far as practicable, be allowed to be defeated on account of an accidental slip or omission. In the facts and circumstances of the present case we think it would be more appropriate to invoke S. 47 of the C.P.C”. In view of the aforesaid settled position in law and there being no exception in this case, the grievance of the petitioner seems to be 4 correct that if there was a sincere effort made by the Court below to execute a decree by appointing a Pleader Commissioner, the decree could have been easily executed. This Court has thus no option but to allow both the Civil Revision applications by setting aside the impugned orders. In that view of the matter, as the decree holders are already in possession of the suit land and have also constructed their building thereon, the Court below will now create no further hindrance by entertaining any application under Section 47 C.P.C. in this regard inasmuch as it is the case of the petitioner that the decree stands executed and satisfied. With the aforesaid observations and directions both the Civil Revision applications are allowed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)