Sandeep Kumar, J. – This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 07.02.2018 passed by learned Sub Judge-I, Hilsa in Execution Case No. 06 of 2013, by which he has dismissed the execution case by holding that it is not maintainable.

2. The facts of this case, as stated in the writ petition, are that the original plaintiff namely, Dhano Devi (predecessor in interest of the petitioners) filed Title Suit No. 95 of 1986 against Hari Charan Choudhary and others (predecessor in interest of the respondents) for declaration of title and confirmation of possession with respect to 10 decimals of land and also for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. In the said suit, it was stated by the plaintiff that land measuring 20 decimals situated at Mauza- Islampur Tola Mathpar, P.S.-Islampur, District- Nalanda was Gairmajarua Malik parti land, which was settled by the exlandlord and a Hukumnama was also granted in favour of the original plaintiff. Upon vesting of Jamindari, ex landlord submitted return in the name of the plaintiff and thereafter Jamabandi was created in the name of the plaintiff. In the new survey, purcha was issued in the name of the plaintiff showing three new sub plots but with respect to six decimals of land, the name of one Shyam Mali was wrongly recorded. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed objection. When the consolidation proceeding started, the defendants got their names entered in the certificate with respect to 10 decimals of land out of plaintiffs land measuring 20 decimals. In the said suit, written statement was filed by the defendants (predecessors in interest of the respondents). The Sub Judge-II, Hilsa vide judgment and order dated 11.06.1992 dismissed the aforesaid suit by relying upon the Hukumnama produced by the defendants and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, the original plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 49 of 1992, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 30.01.1996. Against the aforesaid judgment and order of the appellate Court, the original defendants filed Second Appeal No. 69 of 1996, which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 24.09.2013 with cost. Thereafter, the original defendants moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2013 passed in Second Appeal No.69 of 1996 by way of filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2419 of 2014, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2014.

3. However, in the meantime, the petitioners filed Execution Case no.06 of 2013 for execution of decree of the lower appellate court and second appellate court. The respondents-judgment debtors filed a rejoinder to the said execution case. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a reply to the said rejoinder. By the impugned order dated 07.07.2018 the learned Sub Judge has dismissed the execution case by holding that it is not maintainable. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Executing Court has committed error in passing the impugned order. He further submits that even a declaratory decree i.e. the decree in which the title of the plaintiff has been declared would be executable otherwise there would be multiplicity of litigations and another suit would have to be filed for recovering possession.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Babu Lal vs.

M/s Hazari Lal Kishori Lal & Others reported in (1982) 1 SCC 525; judgment of Orissa High Court in case of Biswanath vs. Uttara Bewa and Others reported in 1986 SCC OnLine Ori 41.

6. Learned counsel for the judgment debtors/respondents has supported the order of Executing Court and has reiterated their stand that the Execution Case No.06 of 2013 was not maintainable and therefore, it has rightly been dismissed by the Court below.

7. I have considered the submissions of both the pa