Prashant Kumar, J: This civil revision is directed against the order dated 17.5.2005 passed by SubJudge5th Hazaribagh in Execution Case No. 17 of 2000/Execution Case No. 09 of 2002, whereby and where under the Execution has been dismissed with observation that if the decree holder so desire, may file a fresh execution for recovery of costs.

2. It appears that the petitioners/decree holders filed an application for execution of decree passed in Title Suit No. 79 of 1992 praying therein to eject judgment debtors from the suit properties, and Khas possession of the same be given to them. It appears that the said application was instituted as Execution Case No. 17 of 2000. During pendency of said Execution Case , another application under section 94 read with section 151 of the C.P.C. filed, stating therein that the judgment debtors are interfering with the right, title and interest of the decree holders and prevent them from cultivating, sowing and transplanting paddy seedlings over the suit land. Accordingly, it is prayed that appropriate order may be passed against the judgment debtors so that the decree passed by the court can be fully implemented.

3. It further appears that one more application filed on 19.9.2003, under order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC stating therein that judgment debtors were interfering with their right, title and interest over the suit land and not allowing them to cultivate and sow paddy crops. Therefore properties of judgment debtors be attached and they may sent to civil prison. The learned court below found that the decree was for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. Thus in the present execution proceeding judgment debtors cannot be ejected from the suit properties, because confirmation of possession presupposes the possession of decree holder over the suit properties. The court below further find that the application under section 94 and order XXI rule 32 of the CPC is not maintainable. Accordingly, the execution case has been dismissed by the impugned order.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is bad in law because the judgment debtors did not appear and contest the instant proceeding. It is further submitted that the learned court below has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by denying to issue writ of delivery of possession. It is further submitted that the impugned order is bad because it is duty of the court to see that the decree of permanent injunction must be complied with by the judgment debtor. It is submitted that If the decree holder brought some facts to the notice of the court, from which it appears that the judgment debtors are violating the order of permanent injunction, then the court is duty bound to take all coercive steps against the judgment debtors. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in this revision.

5. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. As noticed above, the petitioner/decree holder filed a suit for the following reliefs:

(I) Declaration of title over Schedule 'A' as raiyats. (ii) Confirmation of possession over Schedule 'A' or in the alternative if the plaintiffs be dispossessed during the pendency of the suit then a decree for recovery of possession be passed by evicting the defendants from the suit lands. (iii) Deleted v.o dt. 20.11.1987 (iv) Permanent injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and their man from coming upon the suit lands or interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. (v) Cost of the suit. (vi) Any other or further relief to which the plaintiffs may be found entitled.

The aforesaid title suit decreed on contest with cost. The right and title of plaintiffs declared over the suit land and their possession on the same was confirmed. The defendant no. 1 to 4 are permanently restrained also from going over the suit land and from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs.

6.