IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.509 of 2006 LALU BHAGAT Versus SITA BHAGAT & ORS ----------- 5 20/10/2008 I.A.No.2303 of 2008. For the reasons mentioned in this application the substitution of opposite party no.1 is allowed and in his place his heirs as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the application are directed to be substituted. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite parties. It is really one of those fortunate cases which gives an impression that no civil suit or execution proceeding can come to an end till one of the two parties really intends to call it a day. Here is a case where in a suit of the year 1997 a decree was passed in September, 2001 which was made subject matter of execution case and a direction was given for execution of the decree by effecting delivery of possession on 17.9.2002. That order was never challenged by the petitioner, judgment- debtor. Subsequently, grievance was made on 29.11.2002 against the order dated 17.9.2002 which was rejected by a reasoned order dated 2 1.4.2003. That order was allowed to become final. Thereafter, when the Court issued a writ for effecting delivery of possession on 17.4.2004, an application was filed by the petitioner, judgment-debtor, on 29.6.2004 to recall the order dated 1.4.2003 and 17.4.2004 which was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 18.12.2004. The petitioner against the aforementioned order dated 18.12.2004 had moved this Court in C.R. No. 397 of 2005, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 14.3.2005. In the said order this Court had given liberty to the petitioner to seek other remedy under law before the court below. Taking a clue from this observation the petitioner again filed an application on 14.9.2005 to recall the order dated 1.4.2003 which had already been unsuccessfully assailed by him both before the Court below and this Court in the aforementioned Civil revision application. The impugned order, in fact, has accordingly held that the prayer for recall of order dated 1.4.2003 was not maintainable in view of the order dated 3 14.3.2005 in C.R. No. 397 of 2005. Counsel for the petitioner seriously contends that the decree holder, opposite party, cannot get anything beyond the decree. Such submission in effect would amount to questioning the order of the court below dated 17.9.2002 which, as stated above, has already become final by run of events, as noted above. This Court, in fact, has also considered and rejected the aforesaid aspect while dismissing the earlier civil revision application C.R. No. 397 of 2005 by an order dated 14.3.2005. That being so, this Court does not find any merit in this case, which must be held to be frivolous one, and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar