Accurate description of immovable property in the plaint and decree is crucial for its identification and execution of the decree.

H.N. Sarma, J.

1. This petition raises a short but common problem faced by the executing Court In execution of an ejectment decree In respect of Immovable property. The petitioner in this case suffered by an ejectment decree dated 19.2.98 (sic) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Nagaon in TS No. 175/1993.

2. The aforesaid decree was passed in the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent and was affirmed by the learned appellate Court leading to its finality. The suit property as described in the Schedule to the plaint is mentioned in the decree being landed property measuring 1 B 2 K 8 L covered by Dag No. 57, KP Patta No. 57 and a further area of land measuring 1 B 4 K 18 L covered by Dag No. 73, P Patta No. 58 and 1 B 1 K covered by Dag No. 74 of Nizsahar Mouza, Kissamat Morikolong in total area 4 B 3 K 6 L, bounded by North Lutfur Rahman, South-Idrls All and plaintiff Abdul Kader, East-Morlkolong LP School and Dhanai Das and West-Land of the plaintiff.

3. The aforesaid decree was put into execution by the decree-holder wherein the Title Execution Case No. 13 of 2001 was registered. Writ of delivery of possession of the decretal property in favour of the decree-holder having been issued, the bailiff of the Court along with revenue officials went to the field and executed the decree on 29-4-2003 according to the boundary described in the decree. The said decree could be executed, as the property is identifiable as per boundary given in the schedule of the decree and as demarcated by the Lat Mondal. After execution of the decree, the bailiff of the Court also submitted the necessary report, which was duly accepted by the learned Executing Court.

4. The judgment-debtor, after execution of the decree filed a written objection against the report of the Nazir stating the execution of the decree. In the said objection a grievance was made by the judgment-debtor that in fact the Dag No. 57 and Patta No. 57 do not cover a part of the decretal land and the decree was executed without confirming the said position. However, the judgment-debtor has not raised any objection regarding the boundary of the decretal land. The decree-holder filed reply to objection filed by the judgment-debtor and the learned Executing Court enquired into the matter and during such enquiry, the evidences of the concerned Lat Mondal, Nazir and the judgment-debtor were recorded. After hearing the matter on completion of the enquiry, the learned Executing Court vide impugned order dated 19-5-2004 rejected the allegation of the judgment-debtor which Is the subject-matter of challenge in this revision petition.

5. I have heard Mr. S.K. Borkataky, learned Counsel for the judgment-debtor/petitioner and Mr. DC Mohanta, learned senior counsel for the decree-holder/opposite party.

6. It is submitted by Mr. Barkataky that in fact the decree itself was wrongly drawn Up stating that a part of the decretal land falls under Dag No. 57 and Patta No. 57 although the land under the said Dag and Patta is not the subject-matter of the suit and without confirming the said position the decree was wrongly executed by the bailiff of the Court and, therefore, the learned Executing Court has committed jurisdictional error in accepting the report of the Nazir and by passing the impugned order dated 19-5-2004 by arriving at a wrong decision. The learned Counsel further submits that without amending the decree, the same was not executable.

7. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, on the other hand, submits that the records of the case including the statements of the witnesses recorded during the enquiry into the allegation made by the judgment-debtor disclose that the decree was executed as per the boundary of the suit land and there is no illegality or irregularity in executing the decree in such manner by referring to the boundary described in the schedule to the decree and the allegation of the judgment-debtor is baseless and untenable in law. I have given my anxious conside