The executing court has the power to execute a decree to its satisfaction and to verify the identity of holding numbers from original records and survey maps.

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.

Heard counsel for the parties.

2. In all these writ petitions there is a common thread binding the case of the parties. The petitioner i.e. the Commissioner of Hazaribag Nagar Parishad is a objector under Order 21, Rule-97, 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of the CPC in Execution Case Nos.16/1989, 17/1989, 18/1989 and 20/1989 instituted by the respondent No. 1 decree holder in Eviction Suit Nos. 14 of 1986, 03 of 1988, 04 of 1988 and 05 of 1988. Decree and judgment dated 31st March, 1989 rendered by the court of learned Sub Judge-I, Hazaribag. Title Suit No. 52/1983 was an Inter Pleader Suit filed by the tenants i.e. other private respondents herein for a declaration as to which of the two claimants i.e. the landlords are entitled to payment of rent in respect of the suit property. Eviction Suit Nos. 01/1988, 02/1988, 03/1988, 04/1988 and 05/1988 all were preferred by the respondent landlord against their tenants in respect of the properties described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. All these suits were decided by the common judgment and decree dated 31.03.1989 and decree dated 10th April, 1989 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition No. 567/2015). The relevant documents enclosed to the instant writ petition are being referred to hereinafter also as they are common to all the writ petitions.

3. The State of Bihar was also a contesting defendant in the Inter-Pleader Suits. The learned trial court decreed the eviction suit and also held that defendant nos. 4 to 6 in the Inter-Pleader Suit have got valid cause of action to bring their respective suits and they are entitled for payment of rent in respect of respective premises. The decree in the eviction suits in now under execution. The operative part of the judgment are being reproduced hereunder :-

"52. These four issues are taken together for consideration for the sake of convenience as regards the cause of action to file T.S. 52/83 the same owes to the averments in para-20 of the plaint wherein it is stated that the cause of action for the suit arose on 7.7.1979 the date of demand by the Hazaribagh Khas Mahal, on 2.2.1983 the date of demand by the sons of late Sugan Chand Jain second set of defendants. On 23.3.83 the day of notice u/s 80 C.P.C. (page 90th begins) and the date of service thereof i.e. between 25th to 28th and on the expiry of 60 days therefrom and since then is continuing from day to day within the jurisdiction of this court. Obviously, the plaintiff of T.S. 52/83 shall be entitled to file an inter-pleader suit only when they will be put at fix after being exposed to such a situation under which they will be running risk at the cost of their interest unless seeks inter-frame of the court for issuance of direction to relieve the plaintiffs from such a state of stall-mate. It has been attributed to the demand by the Hazaribagh Khas Mahal on 7.7.79 what for this demand came on surface by the side of Hazaribagh Khas Mahal and who represented the same has conspicuously been omitted to be mentioned. The omission is not accidental. It is well calculated for there has absolutely been no demand for anything including rent by any officer comprising first set of defendants. As a matter of fact T.S. 52/1983 is a laboured suit filed on manufactured cause of action with the plaintiffs thereof creating circumstances to bring first set of defendants and second set of defendants at logger read with a view to facilitating these (shop keepers) to fish in troubled water at the cost of the purchasers i.e. second set of defendants. This view of mine finds support from further discussion which will make it crystal clear that the plaintiffs of T.S. 52/83 had in fact no occasion to file this inter-pleader suit for they have had got absolutely no cause of action much less the valid cause of action amidst pointed query made by the court to Sri Krishna Kumar learned Advocate appearing for the shop keepers to display the demand notice dated 7.7.79 he could produc