The challenge made in this revision petition is an order passed in Execution Case No. 20/2001 dated 18.3.2002 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Jorhat, by which an application filed by the petitioner/judgment-debtor objecting the execution of the decree has been rejected. In challenging the said order, the petitioner has also incidentally questioned the original judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 1, Jorhat dated 7.9.2000 passed in T.S. No. 13/95 by which the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed ex-parte.

2. I have heard Mr. D. C. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor and also heard Mr. K.K. Nandi, learned counsel for the decree holder/opposite party. Also perused the materials available on record.

3. For the purpose of disposal of the revision petition, a brief of the relevant may be stated as follows :

The plaintiff filing of this revision petition inter alia are that the plaintiff filed the T.S. No. 13/95 in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 1, Jorhat praying for removal of air pollution and noxious atmosphere by demolishing the cowshed of the defendant and permanent injunction. It is the pleaded case for the plaintiff that the defendant/petitioner has constructed a cowshed towards the northern side of the plaintiff's land contiguous to his boundary and as a result of accumulation of cow dung, cow urine and garbages, the area has been polluted. That apart the water of the ring well located contiguous to the boundary wall of the plaintiff has also been polluted and contaminated. Narrating the nuisance that has been caused, the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs in the suit.

"1) For removal of air pollution and noxious atmosphere by demolishing the cow shed of the defendant and by clearing the present collection of cow dung, urine and garbages from the present site.

2) For permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from keeping cows and from collecting and throwing cow dung, cow urine and garbages near the plaintiff's residence and Ring well and at the present site.

3) To grant a temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit in the same matter as prayed in connection with the permanent injunction.

4) Cost of the suit.

5) Any other reliefer reliefs to which the plaintiff is found entitled in justice and equity."

4. It may be noted here that the plaintiff has not given any separate schedule describing the said cow shed in the plaint in terms of the Order 7 Rule 3 of the CPC. Summons of the suit having been served upon the sole plaintiff/petitioner he contested the suit by filing the written statement. Apart from taking usual defences, it is also pleaded that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the brother of the plaintiff, a direction was issued by the town committee to remove the cow shed to a different place and accordingly, the defendant has shifted the cow shed six feet away from the southern boundary wall and there is a drain to flash out the executory products, by the side of the boundary wall. After filing of the written statement and contesting the suit for some time the defendant defaulted and consequently, the suit was proceeded against him ex-paite.

5. The learned trial court after considering materials available on record including the local inspection report, Ext. 1, of the site decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 7.9.2000, when the aforesaid decree was put on execution by filing the Title Execution Case No. 20/2001, the judgment debtor/petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC alleging inter alia that the plaint contains no description and schedule of the property as required under Order 7 Rule 3 has been given the suit property is unidentifiable and on that count challenged the executing of the decree under Section 47 CPC by the judgment-debtor/decree holder vide order dated 18.3.2002 the executing c