S.N.Hussain, J.

1. Petitioner was defendant-judgment-debtor of Title Suit No. 203 of 1985, which was filed by the opposite party for specific performance of contract for sale of the suit premises vide deed of agreement dated 17.9.1984. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 5.1.2005 by which the learned Sub-ordinate Judge-3, Buxar, had allowed the decree-holders (O.Ps.) petition for delivery of possession in Execution Case No. 4 of 1993, which was filed for execution of the decree passed in Title Appeal No. 78 of 1987 which had arisen out of the said Title Suit No. 203 of 1985.

2. Short fact of this case is that initially the petitioner had filed Title Suit No. 94 of 1985 against the opposite party for a declaration that the deed of agreement for sale dated 17.9.1984 was void, fraudulent and forged. Thereafter, the opposite party filed Title Suit No. 203 of 1985 against the petitioner for specific performance of the said contract for sale dated 17.9.1984. Both the suits were heard together and were decided by a common judgment dated 30.6.1987 by which Title Suit No. 94 of 1985 filed by the petitioner was dismissed and Title Suit No. 203 of 1985 filed by the opposite party was decreed in part.

3. Against the decree of Trial Court dismissing Title Suit No. 94 of 1985, the petitioner filed Title Appeal No. 93 of 1987, whereas against the decree of the Trial Court decreeing in part Title Suit No. 203 of 1987 the opposite party filed Title Appeal No. 78 of 1987. Both the appeals were heard together and were decided by a common judgment dated 3.8.1992 by which the Lower Appellate Court dismissed petitioners Title Appeal No. 93 of 1987 and allowed opposite partys Title Appeal No. 78 of 1987 decreeing the opposite partys claim in full. Against the decrees in both the said Title Appeals the petitioner filed two Second Appeals bearing S.A. No. 299 of 1992 and S.A. No. 300 of 1992, but both of them were dismissed by this Court on 25.2.1994. Even SLP No. 9340 of 1994 filed by the petitioner against the said judgment and decree was dismissed on 12.7.1994 by the Hon ble Supreme Court.

4. It transpires that after the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, opposite party filed Execution Case No. 4 of 1993 for execution of the decree dated 3.8.1992 passed in Title Appeal No. 78 of 1987 for specific performance of contract. In the meantime, sale deed was executed through the processes of Court in favour of the opposite party with respect to the suit premises. Thereafter, on 18.1.2003 the opposite party (decree- holder) filed petition before the executing Court for deputation of Magistrate and police force for affecting delivery of possession of the suit premises in his favour.

5. The petitioner (judgment-debtor) filed her rejoinder on 3.5.2003 and thereafter filed a supplementary petition on 10.7.2004 raising objections that since neither the plaintiff-decree-holder had sought any relief of recovery of possession in his plaint nor any decree for delivery of possession had been passed, no such relief can be granted in an execution case. The decree-holder (O.P.) filed his rejoinder to the aforesaid supplementary petition of the judgment-debtor (petitioner) on 14.8.1994.

6. By the impugned order dated 5.1.2005 the learned Court below has allowed the petition of the decree-holder (O.P.), rejected the objection of the judgment-debtor (petitioner) and directed delivery of possession in favour of the decree-holder through Magistrate and police force. This order has been challenged in this revision by the judgment-debtor (petitioner) on the ground that neither any relief of delivery of possession was sought by the plaintiff (O.P.) in her suit or appeal nor any decree for delivery/recovery of possession was passed by any of the Courts, hence the executing Court should have confined itself only to execution and registration of the sale-deed in favour of the decree-holder (O.P.) and this having already been done, there