IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.919 of 2008 SK. MAINUDDIN & ORS Versus BIBI SAIMUN NESSA ----------- 2 1.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order allowing the amendment, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error specially when the petitioners, judgment debtor has also been given opportunity to file additional objection. The Court below, in fact, has correctly proceeded in terms of Order XXI, Rule 32(5) which lays down as follows. “(5) Where a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed, the Court may, in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the processes aforesaid, direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree- holder or some other person appointed by the Court, at the cost of the judgment-debtor, and upon the act being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such manner as 2 the Court may direct and may be recovered as if they were included in the decree”. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have already filed Misc. Case No. 2(A) of 2006 for setting aside the ex-parte decree, sought to be executed in Execution Case No. 1/2004 by the decree holder, opposite party and therefore the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss on account of the impugned order allowing amendment, is to be only noticed for its being rejected. This Court cannot ignore the fact that a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the decree holder, opposite party had already been passed in the year, 1994 and therefore, if any dispossession as alleged by her had taken place in the year, 2004 contrary to the scope of decree, the Court below had acted within its jurisdiction by allowing amendment in this regard in terms of the principles of Order XXI Rule 32(5) of C.P.C.. The apprehension of the petitioners that the Misc. Case filed by him would be kept pending for an indefinite period, is also misconceived as there is nothing on record to support the same. It is, however, observed that the aforementioned 3 Misc. Case No. 2(A) of 2006 must be disposed of expeditiously. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this Civil Revision application is dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) 4 5