JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioners be kept with the record.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 16.4.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 10th Court, Alipore in Title Execution No. 29 of 2018, arising out of Title Suit No. 58 of 2010, present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred.

3. The petitioners contended that the petitioners as plaintiffs filed the said suit for eviction, arrear license fee and damage against the opposite party herein.

4. In the said suit, the plaintiffs made out a case that one Biman Kumar Nath and Tapan Kumar Nath were the joint owners of the suit property and they granted license to the defendant for a period of three years. The agreement for license was never constituted as agreement of lease and defendant has neglected to pay the licence fee from July 2007 and therefore, the plaintiffs have asked the defendant to quit and vacate the suit property after revoking license by sending a notice. As defendant in spite of receipt of notice failed to vacate the suit property, the plaintiffs filed the abovementioned suit. The opposite party/defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and denied all material allegations. The trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 28.02.2018 decreed the suit in part on contest against the defendant and directed the defendant to quit and vacate the suit property within a period of 90 days. As defendant failed to vacate the suit property, the petitioners put the decree in execution, which was registered as Title Execution Case No. 29 of 2018.

5. In the said execution proceeding, the plaintiffs/decree-holders filed an application on 13.7.2018 under Section 151 , 152 and 153 read with Order XX Rule 6 and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for incorporation of the address of the suit property including the boundary of the suit property in the decree and making correction of suit number and date in the cause title of judgment.

6. Learned court below vide its impugned order dated 16.4.2019 was pleased to reject the said application holding that said address is not included in the plaint and that the application has been filed at a pre-mature stage and it is not specific which part of the provision is not in the decree, the provisions of Order XX Rule 6 does not apply in the present case.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the learned court below acted illegally in rejecting the application of the petitioners without considering that if the schedule of the decree is not corrected at this stage, then the decree may become inexecutable. Learned court below failed to appreciate that without the premises number of the suit property in the decree, baliff may not be able to deliver possession in favour of the decree-holder. Accordingly, he has prayed for setting aside the order and for direction to make necessary correction in the judgment and decree.

8. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Muni Lal vs. The Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 642.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that Order XX Rule 9 says, where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the decree shall contain a description of such property sufficiently to identify the same and the decree shall satisfy such boundaries or numbers where such property can be identified by boundaries or by numbers. But in the present case, plaintiffs having been fai