Dr. Anshuman, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and learned counsel for the intervener.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to inadvertence in the 5th line of the paragraph 4 of the petition, plot No. 1134 has wrongly been typed instead of plot No. 1133 and seeks permission to correct the same. Permission is granted accordingly, to correct the same in the course of the day.

3. The present Civil Misc. Jurisdiction No. 1377 of 2017 has been filed for setting aside the order dated 15.07.2017 passed in Misc. Case No. 08 of 2016 (arising out of Execution Case No. 1446 of 2014) passed by learned Sub-Judge 1st, Patna by which the miscellaneous case of the petitioners filed under Order XXI Rule 97 and 99 of Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the judgment dated 28.11.2013 passed in Title Partition Suit No. 251 of 2013 as well as the decree prepared and signed on 07.12.2013 under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 is a registered society under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the petitioner No. 2 is the Honorary Secretary of petitioner No. 1. He also submits that the petitioner No. 1 has purchased vacant piece of land appertaining to plot No. 1092, 1093, 1094 and 1133 bearing Khata No. 24 and 18 measuring 1 acre 28 decimals of land situated at Mauza- Mainpura Mahal Chak pargana-Phulwari, Thana No. 2, Tauzi No. 43, Police Station-Digha, District- Patna through two registered sale deeds in the year 1957. He further submits that after execution of sale deed, the lands were mutated in the name of the petitioner No. 1 and payment of rent started after opening jamabandi, but subsequently, one Ramji Paswan has challenged the said mutation before the District Collector Land Reforms and again before the Additional Collector, Patna which are decided in favour of the petitioners and since then, name of the petitioner No. 1 is continuing in the records of right.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon constructing a small house, the part of the said premises were given to the occupation of the Patliputra Police Station on rent. He submits that on the issue of the rent, the dispute occurred between the petitioner and the State of Bihar in which vide order dated 03.01.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 39 of 2008, this Hon’ble Court has pleased to pass order in favour of the petitioner for the payment of rent which was affirmed in Civil Review No. 57 of 2011 arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 39 of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the year 2014 also, some persons of Mainpura locality have also tried to disturb the possession, but upon contest, the matter was settled. He further submits that the petitioner surprised to receive information in the year 2016 that the ministerial staff of the civil court came on the land of the petitioner with order of delivery of possession passed in Execution Case No. 1446 of 2014 arising out of judgment and decree passed in the Title Partition Suit No. 251 of 2013 dated 28.11.2013. As soon as the petitioner received the said information, he filed two applications before the Civil Court. One application he has filed bearing Misc. Case No. 104 of 2016 before the District Judge, Patna requesting to stop the Delivery of Possession and second application he has filed before the Executing Court bearing Misc. Case No. 08 of 2016 under Order XXI Rule 97 and 99 with other Sections of Code of Civil Procedure. Counsel submits that Misc. Case No. 104 of 2016, was disposed of by the District Judge, Patna with a direction to take remedy in Misc. Case No. 08 of 2016 in accordance with law. Thereafter, the counsel started persuading the said Misc. Case No. 08 of 2016 which was pending before the Executing Court, but his miscellaneous application was rejected, and the Executing Court has refused to adjudicate his case. There