Money Suit being M.S. No. 11 of 2006 was instituted in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div. Court No.1, Agartala, West Tripura by the respondent-plaintiff-decree holder against the petitioner-defendant-judgment debtor, for realization of an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- only with interest. The said suit was contested by the petitioner by way of filing written statement. After careful consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div. framed issues and ultimately decreed the suit stating, inter alia, that the entitlement of the plaintiff for realization of the sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- is hereby declared and he shall realize the sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- from the defendant accordingly, i.e. the defendant shall pay Rs. 2,20,000/- to the plaintiff and the defendant shall also pay the interest on the aforesaid amount @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of his making payment and also awarded a cost of Rs. 8,691.25 paise.

2. After passing of decree by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div. in the aforesaid suit the respondent has filed an Execution Case by way of filing a petition under Order XXI Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for short) and the same was registered as EX(M)2010 of 2009. Upon receipt of notice from the Execution Court the petitioner filed an application raising his objection under Section 47 of the Code, which was registered as Misc. Case 43 of 2010, wherein he raised the question of maintainability of the execution proceedings, i.e. the petition under Order XXI Rule 11 on the ground that the petition is incomplete and the same is not filed as per Appendix-E of the Code. In his application under Section 47, the judgment debtor also stated that the petition under Order XXI Rule 11 is not in consistence with the decree and most wrongly the amount of cost has been shown as Rs. 2,20,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum and for which the judgment debtor has failed to understand the difference between the decreetal amount and the cost of the suit. In the said objection under Section 47, he has also taken another ground that column No. 10 of the petition under Order XXI Rule 11, the respondent- decree holder failed to mention the particulars of the movable properties or the mode of attachment of the movable properties while arguing for civil imprisonment of the judgment debtor.

3. The aforesaid application under Section 47 i.e. Misc. Case No. 43/2010 was taken up by the Execution Court for hearing on 27.02.2012 and on completion of hearing, the said application of the petitioner-judgment debtor was rejected and consequent thereto, proceeded with the execution case.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2012 in Misc. Case No. 43 of 2010 the petitioner-defendant-judgment debtor preferred the instant petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India for setting aside the order impugned.

5. Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel along with Ms. R. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant-judgment debtor and Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel along with Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff-decree holder.

6. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant-judgment debtor issued notice upon the respondent-plaintiff-decree holder and while issuing notice also stayed the further proceedings of the aforesaid Execution Case and called for the Lower Court Records.

7. Mr. Banerjee while urging for the relief sought for in the instant revision petition would contend that the Execution Court committed wrong while passing the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner-defendant-judgment debtor under Section 47 as he did not consider Order XXI Rule 11 and Order XXI Rule 11A of the Code in its proper perspective. More so, the Execution Court also did not consider that the application for execution of the decree, as filed by the respondent-plaintiff-de