CRP 446/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. SP Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The moot question that requires for determination in this revision petit ion is as to whether the learned Executing Court was justified in holding vide o rder darted 19.11.09 that the question of identification of decreetal land has a lready been settled therefore, further evidence on the identification of decreet al land is not required thereby further evidence on the same question was expung ed since the witnesses were not made available for cross-examination and consequ ently, therefore, the petition filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Proce dure (hereinafter referred to as ’the Code’) was rejected. The plaintiff as decree holder filed the suit in the year 1974 being Tit le Suit No.104/74, which, however, was renumbered as Title Suit No.6 of 1983 on transfer from the court of the Assistant District Judge No.1, Guwahati to the As sistant District Judge No.2 and decree was obtained on 21.05.87, which, however, could not be executed on the pretext of proper identification of decreetal land due to mis-description of Dag Number and change of boundaries wherefor the exec ution proceeding continued from 1987 due to various orders passed by the learned Executing Court and by this Court and the matter is put to rest vide order date d 19.11.09 whereby the Executing Court has directed to issue writ of delivery of possession fixing 06.01.10 for report. The apprehension in the mind of the judgment debtor/revision petitioner in the present revision petition has no foundation to stand since the identifica tion of decreetal land has been settled by the Executing Court on 20.04.06 passe d in Misc.(J)Case No.67/05, the operative part of which is quoted hereunder- &for identification of the decreetal land the old dag number and patta number have been clearly mentioned in the decree. As the dag number and patta nu mber have been changed in the meantime, the same can be identified with the help of both old and new cadastral map and relevant revenue records. As such the dec ree is required to be executed as it was on its original state as on 9/8/02 with the help of both old and new Cadastral map and other related revenue documents. The other questions relating to substitution of legal heirs of some of t he judgment debtors has been finally settled by this Court vide order dated 16.0 9.09 passed in CRP No. 209/09 and facing with such a situation the counsel appea ring for the judgment debtor/revision petitioner would urge that the writ of del ivery of possession of decreetal land as directed by the Executing Court on 19.1 1.09 may be executed in presence of Revenue staffs alongwith other staffs as req uired under the law at the time of issuing writ. Therefore, there is no question left to be adjudicated upon save and exc ept that while the writ of delivery of possession of decreetal land is issued, i t may include in the writ that delivery of possession of decreetal land may be e xecuted in presence of the revenue staffs apart from the staffs that may be requ ired under the law for execution of the decree which prayer the Court seems to b e justified. Since the Executing court vide order dated 20.04.06 has passed the order relating to identification of decreetal land as indicated above, the same shall be carried out in presence of the revenue staffs along with other officials as required for execution of delivery of possession of the decreetal land which sha ll be included in the writ. Accordingly, the revision petition challenging the order dated 19.11.09 is not interfered with save and except that while issuing the writ, the Revenue staffs be included in the said writ along with other staffs required for lawful execution of delivery of possession of the decreetal land and accordingly, the E xecuting Court shall pass necessary order pursuant to this order passed by this Court.