JUDGMENT :

S. B. PD. SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel of both the parties. 

2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Application has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“a. For issuance of writ of certiorari or direction\order or writ for setting aside order dated 19-10-2024 passed by Sub- Judge, Senior Division-I, Bagaha in Execution Case No. 1 of 2021, whereby and where under the learned Court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

b. For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order\orders, direction/directions, for which petitioner may deemed entitled under the fact and circumstance of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent/plaintiff had filed Title Suit No. 95 of 2015 for permanent injunction against defendants/petitioners for not making any interference on the possession of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit properties. The above suit was decreed and decree of permanent injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, against which, defendants/petitioners/judgment-debtor filed Appeal No. 3 of 2021 and plaintiff/respondent/decree holder has filed Execution Case No. 1 of 2021. The decree-holder has prayed for delivery of possession over the suit properties in Execution Case No. 1 of 2021. In the aforesaid Execution Case, the defendants/petitioners/judgment-debtor filed a petition under Section 47 of the CPC, resisting the execution proceedings and submitted that plaintiff/respondent/decree-holder can not file execution petition in Title Suit No. 95 of 2015 for delivery of possession because neither any relief for recovery of possession was prayed in the suit nor it was granted in decree. Only permanent injunction has been granted in his favour. Hence, the decree passed by the Court below is totally vague and ambiguous and on this score also, the present decree is not executable and decree-holder is not entitled to recovery of possession from the defendants/petitioners/judgment-debtor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that proper procedure of dealing with miscellaneous judicial cases has not been followed by the Executing Court and petition of the petitioners was rejected without examining the facts of both the parties and the impugned order has been passed which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G.Anandam versus Warangal Municipal Corporation reported in 1997 1 ALD 587; 1997 1 ALT 434; 1997 1 APLJ 83; 1997 1 CivCC 606; 1996 0 Supreme(AP) 878;.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/decree holder submits that he has filed the present case for the execution of the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 95 of 2015. The judgment-debtor has been debarred by the Court from filing rejoinder on 23.04.2022. The respondent/decree-holder, thereafter, filed an application on 07.05.2022 for depositing the expenses of Nazir and cost of deputation of Police force and Magistrate and by the order of the Court, the decree-holder has deposited the said expenses. Learned counsel further submits that in the above Title Suit No. 95 of 2015, the main issue was issue Nos. 5 and 6. Issue no. 5 was that whether the plaintiff/respondent is in peaceful possession of the disputed land and issue No. 6 was that whether the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to get a permanent injunction with respect to suit properties. Both the above points were decided by the Court in favour of the decree- holder /plaintiff /respondent. The Judgment-debtor/defendants/petitioners had contested the said Title Suit No. 95 of 2015 and the judgment/decree was passed in full knowledge of judgment-debtor. Learned counsel also submits that present application under Section 47 of the CPC has been filed by the judgment-debtor/petitioners only to prolong the present execution case and the present application of petitio