CRP 333/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI O R D E R ( O R A L) Heard Mr. PS Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the pl aintiff in Title Suit No. 24 of 1989, which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division No. 1), Golaghat, as the trial Court. Aggrieved by the de cree, the plaintiff-petitioner preferred an appeal, which gave rise to Title App eal No. 1 of 1997. By judgment and order, dated 03-12-1998, the appeal was allow ed. The judgment and decree of dismissal passed by the learned trial Court was a ccordingly set aside, right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit l and was declared with direction that the khas possession of the suit land be giv en to the plaintiff by evicting the defendant therefrom. Following the judgment, decree was prepared and signed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Go laghat. The decree was, then, put to execution in Title Execution Case No. 7 of 2009, in the Court of Munsiff No. 1, Golaghat. As the decree, given by the learn ed appellate Court, merely states, appeal is allowed on contest with cost , and did not specify the relief, which had been granted, a petition was filed by the judgment debtor objecting to the execution of the decree by pointing out that t he decree does not mention the relief, which had been granted and since the reli ef was not granted by the decree for recovery of khas possession in favour of th e plaintiff-judgment holder by evicting the defendant-judgment debtor, the decre e was inexecutable. 3. By the impugned order, dated 22-06-2011, passed in Title Execution Case No. 07 of 2009, aforementioned, as the learned Munsiff No. 1 has held the decree as non-executable, the plaintiff-decree holder has filed this revision petition . The law requires every civil court to clearly state, in its judgment, the reli ef, which it has granted and the decree shall be drawn in terms of the relief, s o granted. In the case at hand, there was definitely lapse on the part of the le arned appellate Court inasmuch as it had not specified, while allowing the appea l, in the decree as to what reliefs had been granted. When the relief had not be en indicated at all in the decree, the learned executing Court, in the considere d view of this Court, committed no wrong in declining to execute the decree. The order, dated 22-06-2011, does not, therefore, call for any interference in this revision. The remedy of the petitioner really lies in making appropriate applic ation under Section 152 CPC so that a decree, in accordance with the relief gran ted by the learned appellate Court, can be drawn by the learned appellate Court and the same can be put to execution. A reference, in this regard, may be made t o the case of Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan -vs- Hari Prasad Bhuyan and others, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 197. 4. Confronted with the situation indicated above, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks to withdraw this revision with liberty to file approp riate application, under Section 152 CPC, in the learned appellate Court. Though strictly speaking, no liberty is required by the petitioner, as decree holder, to make an application under Section 152 CPC, as a measure of abundant caution, while this revision is not admitted, liberty is granted to the decree holder-pet itioner to file appropriate application under Section 152 CPC seeking correction s in the decree. 5. With the liberty as granted above, this revision shall stand dismissed. 6. No order as to costs.