IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.81 of 2006 ----------- Smt. Neelam Devi @ Nilam Kumari D/o late Saraswati Devi and wife of Shri Shankar Sah, Azad, resident of village Ghat Parasi, P.O. Chikani, P.S. Kursa Kanta, Sub-Division and District Araria ; at present residing at in front of New Market, Mouja Mokimpur, Ward No.20 Main Road, Begusarai. ….Defendant-Judgment debtor No.5-Petitioner-Petitioner. Versus 1. Mahadev Sah, son of Triveni Sah, resident of Muhalla Miachak, Chatti Road, Begusarai,Pargna- Malki, P.S. Sub-Division & District Begusarai ….Plaintiff-Decree holder-Opposite Party 1st set-Opposite Party 2.(i) Mithu Sah, son of late Bhola Sah (ii) Manish Sah, son of late Bhola Sah (iii) Smt. Madhu Kumari, D/olate Bhola Sah, wife of Shri Jay Prakash Sah (Subjeet Arahat). (iv) Doli Devi, daughter of late Bhola Sah, wife of Shri Raja Sah, Residents of village Jugsarai, Bagher Road, P.S. Jugsarai Tola, District Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) (v) Susri Deji Kumari alias Guddi, D/o late Bhola Sah (vi) Susri Preeti alias Pinki Kumari, D/o late Bhola Sah All (Opp. Parties no. (i),(ii),(iii),(v) and (vi) are residents of Muhalla Miyachak, Chetti Road, Begusarai, P.S. Town, P.O. and District Begusarai 3.(i) Hari Narayan Sah, husband of late Geeta Devi (ii) Raj Kumar Sah, alias Raju (iii) Ragi Kumari d/o late Geeta Devi (iv) Payal Kumari, D/o late Geeta Devi All resident of Muhalla Abhanda Pokhar, Laheria Sarai, P.O. and P.S. Laheria Sarai, District Darbhanga. 4. Rani Devi, wife of Raj Kumar Rao, resident of village Subhankarpur, Darbhanga. 5. Meena Devi, wife of Arjun Lal, resident of village Shibajee Colony, P.O. & P.S. and Sub-Division Purnea. 6. Kishlay Kumar son of Tuna Devi, wife of Jagdish Prasad Sao, resident of village/Mohalla-Ganj Darbhanga, P.O. Rohallaganj, District Darbhanga. 7. (i) Ram Chandra Sah, husband of late Prabnhawati Devi, son of late Puran Sah. (ii) Om Prakash Sah, son of late Prabhawati Devi (iii)Deepak Sah, son of late Prabhawati Devi (iv)Kanchan Lal, daughter of late Prabhawati Devi (v) Ranjana Devi, D/o late Prabhawati Devi (vi) Anita Devi, wife of late Gopal Sah, grand daughter of late Prabhawati Devi (vii)Gorav Kumar (viii)Sorav Kumar Both sons of late Gopal Sah, grand son of late Prabhawati 2 Devi. All residents of Mohalla Mansi Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Mansi, District Khagaria. …Defendants-Judgments debtor-Opp. Parties 2nd set-Opp. Parties. --------- For the Petitioner : M/s Shiv Nandan Roy, Sr. Advocate and Shiv Shankar Azad, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : None. -------- 13/ 06.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 14.02.2006, by which a Bench of this Court dismissed Civil Revision No. 1142 of 2005 with certain observations. 3. The aforesaid civil revision was filed by the defendant-judgment debtor-petitioner challenging order dated 19.03.2005, by which learned Subordinate Judge-I, Begusarai, rejected her prayer to set aside the report of learned survey knowing Pleader Commissioner dated 06.10.2002, which was filed in Execution Case No. 21 of 1998 arising out of the judgment and decree of Title Suit No. 132 of 1996. 4. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff-decree holder-opposite party 1st set for specific performance of contract and for other reliefs and the said suit was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, according to learned counsel for the petitioner a miscellaneous case under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is pending against the said ex parte decree passed in Title Suit no. 132 of 1996. . 5. However, the plaintiff-decree holder filed an application for execution of the said decree, which was numbered as 3 Execution Case No. 21 of 1998, in which the said report was submitted by the Pleader Commissioner, which, according to the defendant-judgment debtor-petitioner, affected the walls of his residential house and the petitioner claimed that if delivery of possession is effected on the basis of the said report, then his old house would be demolished. 6. The said application of the defendant-judgment debtor-petitioner was rejected by the executing court, which was challenged by her in the aforesaid civil revision, which was also dismissed by a bench of this Court vide its order dated 14.02.2006, which is sought by the defendant-petitioner to be reviewed in the instant case. 7 From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that a Bench of this Court fully considered the matter and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and only thereafter dismissed the civil revision petition giving liberty to the petitioner to file a petition within a period of two weeks as indicated in the said order, which, if filed, was to be disposed of by the executing court by a reasoned order in accordance with law. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of record nor does it find any fresh material to take a different view. Accordingly, this civil review petition is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)