I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This revision has put to challenge the order, dated 01.02.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lakhimpur, in Misc. Case No. 19/2006 (arisen out of Title Execution Case No. 9/2004), whereby the objection, raised by the judgment-debtors, alleging that the delivery of possession of land has been given, in excess of the decretal land, to the decree-holders, has been dismissed. Before coming to the merit of this revision, I set out hereinbelow, in brief, the material facts, which have led to this revision.

(i) The decree holders-opposite party instituted Title Suit No. 12/2001 seeking, inter alia, declaration of their rights, title and interest over the suit land, as described in Schedule' A' to the plaint, as well as recovery of khas possession of land in Schedule 'B', the land, described in Schedule 'B', being a part of the land of Schedule 'A', by evicting the defendants therefrom.

(ii) By judgment and order, dated 16.02.2004, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Lakhimpur, decreed the suit by describing the decree as a preliminary decree, whereby plaintiffs' rights, title and interest over the land in Schedule' A', inter alia, was declared and the khas possession of the land, in Schedule 'B', was directed to be delivered to the plaintiffs by ascertaining, with the help of the Circle Officer, Bihpuria, the land in Schedule 'B' and appointed, in this regard, the Circle Officer, Bihpuria, as the Survey Commissioner, with direction to him to personally supervise the demarcation of the land in Schedule 'A' and 'B' so that recovery of khas possession of the land in Schedule 'B' takes place.

(iii) No appeal was preferred by the judgment-debtors against the decree so granted. Thereafter, the decree-holders instituted Title Execution Case No. 9/2004. This execution proceeding passed through various kinds of resistance in the sense that the Circle Officer, Bihpuria, reported to the learned Executing Court, on 22.04.2006, that he had visited the decretal land and found that the decree-holders were already in possession of the decretal land. Interestingly, however, the Circle Officer's report also suggested that appropriate demarcation can be done only by the Director of Survey, Government of Assam, and the Circle Officer : thereafter, requested that the Director of Survey, Government of Assam, be directed to demarcate the land, in question. An objection was raised in the execution proceeding, by the decree-holders, as regards the truthfulness of the Circle Officer's report by contending that the. Circle Officer's report was not true and sought for re-issue of the writ of delivery of possession of the land, in Schedule 'B', to the decree-holders. By filing a petition, the judgment-debtors raised an objection to the effect that the preliminary decree had not been made final and, hence, without passing a final decree, the question of delivery of possession did not arise. This apart, according to the judgment-debtors, the Circle Officer's report clearly revealed that the decree-holders were already in possession of the decretal land and, hence, there was no question of dispossession of the decree-holders as contended by them. However, on the basis of the application, made by the decree holders, seeking issuance of a fresh writ of delivery of possession of the land in Schedule 'B', an order was passed, in the execution proceeding, directing that the writ of delivery be re-issued.

(iv) Yet another application was made by the decree-holders, in the execution proceeding, seeking that notice be issued to the Mandal to be present along with the Nazir at the time of execution of the decree. The learned executing Court, then, passed an order directing the decree-holders to take necessary steps for issuance of writ of attachment of immovable property and, on the strength of the writ, so issued, the Nazir was, eventually, directed to attach the decretal land. In course of time, the Nazir reported that the writ had been exec