Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. Plaintiff-petitioner filed suit for eviction. By judgment and decree dated 14th of May, 1999 passed in Title(E) Suit No. 18 of 1993, the suit was decreed and the defendant was directed to vacate the suit premises as mentioned in Schedule-I of the plaint within two months of the date of the decree.

2. Defendant, aggrieved by the same, preferred appeal before the first appellate court on 28.5.1999 which was registered as T.A. No. 36 of 1999. Plaintiff-decreeholder, put the decree for execution by filing the execution case on 28.1.2000, which was registered as Execution Case No. 3 of 2000. Defendant-judgment-debtor filed application in the execution case on 28th April, 2000, inter alia, stating that the boundary of the premises in the decree has wrongly been given and prayed that till it is corrected, delivery of possession be stayed.

3. The executing court rejected the said prayer of the judgment-debtor on the ground that writ for delivery of possession has been sought in accordance with the decree.

4. The Nazir, who was given the writ to affect delivery of possession, however, reported that the boundary of the premises is not correct. In view of the said report of the Nazir, the executing court by order dated 28.4.2000, directed the decree-holder to take steps for correction of the decree.

5. Description of the property shown in Schedule-I of the plaint and the decree is as follows:

SCHEDULE-I

Description of the suit premises situated at Chitkohra Punjabi Colony, P.S. Gardanibagh, Distt. Patna under the tenancy of defendant from which eviction is sought.

House and land of three rooms bearing Holding No. 257/20 (Old) 182 (256 (New) Circle No. 265.

Bounded as follows: North:Ram Kishan Sah

South:Self

East:Road

West:Self

6. The decree-holder, as directed, filed application on 9.11.2000 for amendment of the plaint and the decree before the trial court. Amendments sought for were as follows:

"1. That in the cause title of the plaint and decree the name Khadan be corrected as Khajan,

2. In the fifth line of Schedule-I of the plaint after the word New and before the word Circle the digit 191/255 be added,

3. And in the boundary of the Schedule-I of the plaint;

4. The name "Ram Kishan Sah" be deleted and in its place "Road" be inserted,

5. The word "self" be deleted and in its place "Ram Kishun Sah" be inserted."

7. Judgment-debtor filed rejoinder, inter alia, contending that he had preferred title appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree which is pending and the decree holder can seek relief in that. By order dated 4.1.2001 prayer of the decreeholder was rejected.

8. Aggrieved by the same, decreeholder preferred Civil Revision No. 180 of 2001 before this Court and by order dated 20.2.2002, said civil revision application was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the decreeolder to file petition for amendment before the appellate court.

9. It is interesting to note that the judgment-debtor then filed application dated 16.3.2002 before, the appellate court seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. Decree-holder filed rejoinder dated 22.3.2002 opposing the same. However, the appellate court by order dated 9.7.2002 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

10. Aggrieved by the same, the decree-holder preferred Civil Revision No. 999 of 2002 before this Court. By order dated 23.9.2002, said civil revision application was disposed off with the following observation:

"xxx In my view, the petitioner is not remediless. He may either file a fresh revision application or file an application in the earlier civil revision ap plication for appropriate order on the basis of subsequent facts."

11. Decree-holder then filed fresh revision application against the order dated (4.1.2001 rejecting the prayer for amendment of the plaint, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 1582 of 2002. By order dated 21.4.2005, said revision application was disposed of with the following observation:

"xxx The petitioner in