JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

The petitioner in this petition seeks to assail the orders dated 17.11.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nayagarh in Execution Case No. 1 of 2013, wherein learned executing court issued direction to the local Revenue Inspector to assist the beliff to identify at the time of delivery of possession of the case land stated to have been encroached by the Judgment Debtors (J.Drs.) and also the order dated 18.05.2015 refusing the prayer of the J.Dr. to recall the order dated 17.11.2014.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual backdrop necessary for proper adjudication of this case are stated hereunder:

3. Opp. Party no.1, namely, Abhimanyu Sahoo, filed C.S. No.3 of 2009 before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nayagarh with the following prayer:

“13. That the plaintiff therefore prays:-

(a) that the plaintiff’s right, title, interest and possession be declared over the suit land and his possession therein be confirmed;

(b) the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 be permanently injuncted from encroaching any portion of the suit land; and from raising any permanent structure on the suit lands;

(c) that in case the defendant Nos.1 and 2 encroach any portion of the suit land during the pendency of the suit then they be evicted through the process of the court;

(d) that if it is found that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 encroached any portion of the suit land then they shall demolish the same at their cost and give vacant possession to the plaintiff;

(e) that the plaintiff’s right of easement of passage be declared over the ‘B’ schedule land;

(f) that the cost of the suit be decreed against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2;

(g) that any other relief or reliefs which the Hon’ble court would deem proper and equitable be given to the plaintiff.”

4. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, learned Civil Judge framed the following issues:

1. Is the suit maintainable?

2. Is there any cause of action to file the suit?

3. Is the suit property properly valued?

4. Whether the plaintiff or D-1 acquired right, title, interest over the suit land?

5. Are the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have encroached the suit land?

6. Has the plaintiff right of easement of passage over ‘B’ schedule land?

7. Whether the disputed land is a public road or not?

8. To what reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?

9. Is the sale deed no. 1916 dtd. 13.5.1996 is valid?

10. Is the description of the suit land vague and indefinite?

5. While answering Issue Nos. 2 and 5, learned Civil Judge held as follows:

“……In absence of any reliable evidence, it will be highly improbable to believe that Deft. No.1 and 2 have encroached any area/portion of the land of the plaintiff, so also from the plot No. 675, which is a Government land. Thus, these issues are answered against the plaintiff……...”

6. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 30.7.2012 with the following order:

“This suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part against the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 on contest, but there is no order as to cost. The right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff is hereby declared over the schedule ‘A’ of the suit land and the plaintiff has right of easement of passage over ‘B’ schedule land.”

7. The decree passed in C.S. No.3 of 2009 was put to execution in Execution Case No.1 of 2013 on the allegation that subsequent to the decree passed in C.S. No.3 of 2009, the J.Drs. no.1, (Defendant No.1), namely, Sri Bhimsen Sahoo, encroached some portion of the suit land measuring 0.120 Sq. links out of 0.0650 Sq. links and the J. Dr. no.2 (Defendant No.2), namely, Sri Pradeep Kumar Satpathy encroached 0.400 Sq. links out of 650 Sq. links from suit plot No.681/1227. They also hurriedly constructed a permanent structure over the encroached area, which constrained the Decree Holder (D.Hr.) (opposite party no.1 herein) to file the execution case. During pendency of the execution case, the D.Hr. filed a petition on 22.07.2014 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. praying, inter alia, to d