Following are the releifs sought in the present application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India:-

“(i) An appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the order dated 20.04.2017 as illegal and void, be issued.

(ii) An appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the Execution Case No. 31/2015/CIS No.68/2015 as not maintainable, be issued.

(iii) Further, prays for issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and/or relief/reliefs which the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The said impugned order, dated 20.04.2017, has been passed in Execution Case No. 31 of 2015 (CIS No. 68 of 2015) by the executing Court on an application filed by the petitioner, who was defendant in Title Suit No. 125 of 1998. In the said application, he had questioned the very maintainability of the execution case, on the ground that the decree of the appellate Court, sought to be executed, was a nullity and, therefore, inexecutable.

3. Before I take note of the submissions made by Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, certain brief facts are to be taken note of first.

4. Respondent 1st set had filed Title Suit No. 125 of 1998, seeking following relief/s, inter alia, as indicated in paragraph 4 of the present application:-

“4. x x x x

(a) That on adjudication of the facts and circumstances stated above the court be pleased to declare that the two sale deeds dated 18.08.1981 purported to executed by defendant second set Chandradeo Mishira in the name of the defendant first set Ram Babu Rai with respect to the Schedule 1 land of the plaint are forged, fabricated, fraudulent, without consideration and void documents and not binding on the plaintiffs.

(b) That on adjudication of relief no. (a) the court be pleased to declare that title and confirm the possession of the plaintiff over Schedule 1 land of the plaint and in case the plaintiff is dispossessed from Schedule 1 land of the plaint during the pendency of this suit or the plaintiff is deemed to be dispossessed by the court in that circumstances, a decree for recovery of possession over the Schedule 1 land be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant first set and the plaintiff be put in possession over the Schedule 1 land of the plaint through the process of the court.

(c) That the court be pleased to issue temporary injunction restraining the defendant first set from dispossessing the plaintiff from Schedule 1 land of the plaint during the pendency of the suit.”

x x x x x

x x x x x

5. The petitioner was defendant No. 1 in the title suit. The suit was dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner that the suit property was transferred to him, through registered sale-deed, by the defendant 2nd set. He, being the purchaser, was impleaded as defendant 1st set in the said title suit.

6. The plaintiffs-respondent 1st set filed Title Appeal No. 11 of 2001, which came to be allowed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C. No.1, Sitamarhi, by the judgment and decree dated, 21.03.2005. The Court, accordingly, held that the plaintiffs were entitled to get a decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. Against the said judgment and decree of the appellate Court, a second appeal was filed before this Court, registered as S.A. No. 181 of 2005, which stood dismissed for noncompliance of the peremptory order, dated 05.04.2010.

7. The plaintiffs-respondent 1st set, thereafter, instituted the execution case, giving rise to Execution Case No. 31 of 2015, for execution of the decree passed by the appellate Court, dated 21.03.2005. In the said execution case, the petitioner resisted the execution on the ground that there was no finding recorded by the appellate court of dispossession of the petitioner during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, there could not have been any decree for recovery of possession.

8. This is the background in wh