IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10101 of 2011 HARIS CHANDRA PRASAD - Petitioner/s(s) Versus MOST.SHEO MURTI DEVI & ORS - Respondent/s(s) ------------ 03. 12.07.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 07.05.2011 passed by Sri Md. A. Karim, Munsif II, Buxar in Execution Case No.2 of 2010 whereby the learned Court below rejected the objection application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, the suit was decreed which was filed only for declaration of title and confirmation of possession but after the suit was decreed, the plaintiff-respondent filed the execution case for recovery of possession. There is no decree of recovery of possession. From perusal of the plaint, it appears that the plaintiff has already prayed for alternative relief of recovery of possession also. From perusal of the judgment, on the basis of which the execution case has been filed, it appears that at paragraph 8, the learned Court below considered that the petitioner himself admitted that he is in permissive possession of the suit premises. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Court below because it cannot be said that the learned Court below has acted beyond his jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)