IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.1686 of 2007 Chalitar Raut @ Charitar Raut & ors. Versus Nandlal Sah & Ors ---------------------------------- 4 1-12-2011 Heard Mr. Virendra Kuar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners. By the impugned order the court below has dismissed Execution Case No. 7 of 2004 filed by the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had obtained a decree declaring their title and granting them the relief for recovery of possession of the suit land against defendants/opposite parties. It appears that the petitioners filed Execution Case No. 1 of 2002 for execution of the decree for recovery of possession and from the ordersheet of the said execution case, brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit by the petitioners, it is manifest that the petitioners have been put in possession in execution of the decree and by order dated 6-7-2004 the report of the Nazir regarding delivery of possession has been accepted and confirmed by the executing court and thereafter the execution case was disposed of after recording full satisfaction of the decree. It is the case of the petitioners that before the confirmation of the report of delivery of possession by the executing court, the petitioners were again dispossessed by the defendants and therefore the delivery of possession earlier effected in favour of the petitioners on 5-5-2002 had lost its effect and consequently the order confirming the same had become meaningless. On the basis of this fact it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the order of confirmation of the 2 report of delivery of possession by the executing court had not resulted in full satisfaction of the decree. However, the petitioners had filed another Execution Case No. 7 of 2004 and has prayed for the delivery of possession over the suit property as was decreed. By the impugned order the court below has held that the decree passed in T.S.No. 10 of 1996 earlier executed in Execution Case No. 1 of 2002 cannot be reexecuted by filing another execution case. There appears to be no legal infirmity in the impugned order. However, this revision application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue their remedy open to them in accordance with law. roy ( V. Nath, J.)