High Court · 2010

r T Islam, learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents had instituted the aforementioned suit praying for a dec ree, inter alia, for ejectment of the petitioner and one Sri Anil Ch. Biswas imp leaded as defendants therein from the suit premises as described in the schedule to the plaint as hereunder: (cid:28)(1) DESCRIPTION OF THE SUIT HOUSES:- (a) One two roomed thatched house for dwelling purpose, sungrass roofing wit h bamboo posts and split bamboo walls with mud-plaster measuring 20’ ft. in leng th and 10’ ft. in breadth standing on the schedule (2) land under Holding No. 12 7 in ward No.3 Mangaldoi Town. (b) One kitchen house measuring 10’ ft. in length and 7’ ft. in breadth with as bestos roofing and split bamboo wall with mud plaster standing on schedule (2) a nd a katcha latrine covered by holding No. 127 in Ward No.3, Mongoldoi Town. (2) (a) Mangaldoi Town, being a part of Dag No. 231. DESCRIPTION OF LAND :- 0B-0K- 1 ‰ LS of land covered by N. Khiraj Mahal No. 94/1 at Ward No.3, (b) OB-1K- 8 ‰ LS of land at Ward No.3, Mangaldoi in Chopai Mouza covered by N.K. Patta No. 20 and being part of Dag No. 229. Previously be Wahid Ali Mir and now Both the lands mentioned in Schedule 2(a)(b) are bounded:- On the North by :- by Haripada Saha On the South :- now by Nripendra Dev Nath On the East by :- On the West :- Previously by Wahed Ali Mir and now by Kamala Sarma and Krishna Agarwalla. (cid:29). Previously by Wahed Ali Mir and Road and The defendants entered appearance and filed their written statements and after a full contest the suit was decreed. The decree was sustained in the high er forums. Having regard to the issues involved, dilation on the facts bearing t hereon is uncalled for. After the decree attained finality the respondents insti tuted the aforementioned Execution Case. Meanwhile, in view of the realignment o f the suit land along with those in its vicinity and the consequential changes i n the revenue records the Dag Nos. and Patta Nos. got altered. With the passage of time the boundaries of the suit land also changed. As the bailiff of the Cour t in view of the above failed to execute the decree for being unable to identify the suit land, the respondents/ decree holders filed an application under Secti on 153 read with Section 151 of the Code for effecting necessary amendments in t he schedule to the decree describing the same. Admittedly, the decree described the suit property as outlined in the schedule to the plaint. As the pleadings of the parties would reveal, the suit house being Holding No. 1 27 is presently located in Dag No. 1522 and not in Dag No. 231/229 as originally described in the plaint. The petitioner/ judgment debtor, however, has claimed possession of the said house. Admittedly as well, the following changes have occ urred to the boundaries of the suit land:- North :- Kamala Saha in place of Hari Pada Saha South :- endra Devnath West :- Krishna Agarwalla in place of Kamla Sarma and Krishna Agarwalla. Gopal Devnath, Nepal Devnath and Biplab Devnath in place of Nrip The learned Executing Court on a consideration of the above being of the view that the amendments proposed to bring forth the aforementioned changes in the schedule to the decree would not in any manner change the nature or feature of the decreetal land/ house, allowed the same. Mr Medhi has urged that in view of the obvious differences in the partic ulars of the suit land and the house as described in the decree and as physicall y exist as on date, the learned Executing Court in allowing the amendments as pr ayed for, has gone behind the decree which is impermissible in law and, thus, th e impugned order needs to be interfered with. Without prejudice to the above, th e learned counsel relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Pratibha Singh & Anr. -vs- Shanti Devi Prasad & Anr., (2003) 2 SCC 330 has urged that a local ins pection of the concerned land and house is inevitably called for so as to obviat e any possibility of visiting the petitioner/judgment debtor with any adverse ci vil consequences in course of the execution of the decree. Mr Islam, in response, has questioned the maintainability of the petitio n on the ground that a similar attempt before this Court had been summarily nega ted. He has further submitted that the marginal alterations in the description o f the suit property with the passage of time do not in any manner materially aff ect its identity and/or the validity of the decree and, thus, the challenge laid before this Court ought to be rejected. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, this Court, on principle, is inclined to approve the approach adopted by the learned Court below. Noticeably, the identity of Holdin g No. 127, the suit house, had never been in dispute between the parties. As ref erred to hereinabove, with the change in the Dag and Patta Nos. this house now s tands on a plot of land under Dag No. 1522 instead of Dag No. 231/229. The bound aries of the suit land on which the house is located, though have undergone some changes on the north, south and west, these are prima facie relatable to the or iginal descriptions. The Apex Court in Pratibha Singh (supra) while reiterating the proposition that an inadvertent error not affecting the merits of the case m ay be corrected under Section 152 of the Code by the concerned Court by supplyin g the omission, had required in the facts and circumstances of that case to unde rtake that exercise after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing and de cide, amongst others, the correctness of the map relied upon by the plaintiff/ d ecree holders during the execution proceeding. Taking a cue from the above decision, this Court is of the considered op inion that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations and future controversy pertaining to the suit property, it would be appropriate if a local inspection i s made thereof within a fixed time frame and depending on the findings thereof, the execution proceedings be undertaken and completed as early as possible. Orde red accordingly. The petition, thus, stands disposed with a direction to the learned Exec uting Court to cause a local inspection of the suit property to be made within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this ord er. The learned Court below would strictly adhere to the time frame fixed by thi s Court and would not grant any adjournment on any count to any of the parties. On receipt of the report of the local inspection, the Executing Court wo uld dispose of the execution proceeding as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than one month therefrom. The local inspection as ordered should be conducted by the concerned competent revenue authority in association with th e bailiff of the Court. No costs.