S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners to quash the order dated 23rd June, 2003 passed by Shri A.R.K. Sinha, Sub-Judge VI, Ranchi in Execution Case No. 1/83(A) read with order dated 10th November, 2003 passed by the said Execution Court. Further prayer has been made to direct the Court below to act in accordance with law and as per the order and decree of the Supreme Court of India.

2. Brief fact of the case as appears is that the respondent Smt. Pratibha Singh entered into an agreement with petitioner Smt. Shanti Devi Prasad on 3rd November, 1976/4th September, 1979 to sell 8 (eight) Kathas of land in Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi out of her total holdings under her two sale deeds Nos. 11032 of 1975 and 7358 of 1976.

On 17th September, 1981, petitioners filed a Title Suit No. 125 of 1981 against defendant Smt. Pratibha Singh and others for specific performance of contract. The said suit was decreed in favour of petitioners on 18th October, 1982, followed by an Execution Case No. 1/83(A), preferred by petitioners for execution of the decree. Interim order of stay was initially passed by the appellate Court and then by the Supreme Court which was finally vacated on 29th November, 2002.

In the meantime, First Appeal No. 27/83(R) preferred by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed by the High Court on 4th April, 1990. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter moved before the High Court in L.P.A. No. 47/90(R), which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of High Court. Being aggrieved, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 moved before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 5061 of 1990, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 3151/92 and was finally dismissed on 23rd December, 1995. A Review Petition No. 63/96, as preferred by the respondents, was also faced with the same fate and dismissed by the Supreme Court on 7th February, 1996. Thereby, the judgment and decree passed by the Court below for specific performance against the defendants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 achieved finality.

In the execution proceeding, parties raised objections from time to time, and most of which were rejected. Ultimately, a sale deed on behalf of the judgment debtors was executed by the Court below on 23rd December, 1998, which also reached its finality, having registered on the direction of the High Court dated 17th October, 2000 passed in CWJC No. 2588 of 2000 (R). Civil Revision Applications, Miscellaneous Appeals, Letter Patent Appeal, Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court and Civil Review applications before the Supreme Court were filed by the judgment debtors i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2, all of which were dismissed, between 14th January, 1999 and 2nd July, 2001.

Against the order of dismissal of two review applications i.e. Review Petition Nos. 15/01 and 61/01 (by common order dated 27th November, 2001), respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred Special Leave Petition Nos. 7144-7145/2002. In those cases, the Supreme Court stayed execution proceeding. Leave was granted and they were converted into Civil Appeal Nos. 7891-7892/2002 and both the appeals were disposed of by Supreme Court by its judgment and decree dated 29th November, 2002, giving detailed directions to the Executing Court for identification of land and delivery of possession of 8 (eight) Kathas of suit land as per the agreement and judgment decree. The interim order of stay of execution proceeding was vacated.

The Supreme Court in its judgment and decree aforesaid gave the following direction,--

"(i) (a) The Executing Court, shall, after going through the record of the case and after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing, decide upon the correctness of the map filed by the plaintiff-decree holders during the execution proceedings and presently forming part of the Court sale deed dated 23.12.1998. If the Executing Court finds that the map forming part of the sale deed, is not a correct map or needs to be rectified either wholly or in part, that shall b