JUDGMENT

The petitioners by filing this application have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution in impeaching the direction given by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar to the salaried amin by correcting the name of the mouza of the land in question which is the subject matter of the Execution Case No.109 of 1999.

2. The litigation between the parties has been going on for more than three and half decades by now. The opposite party as the plaintiff having filed the suit i.e. O.S. No.59 of 1983 on 20.02.1983, it stood decreed by judgment and decree dated 23.12.1998 and 23.01.1999 respectively. The decree holder who is the opposite party here having levied the execution proceeding on 03.02.1999, is yet to receive the fruit of the decree through the Court of law. This shows that indeed the difficulties for the decree-holder in real and practical sense has commenced after getting a decree attaining finality being tested in first appeal and after withdrawal of the second appeal about nine years back.

3. At this juncture, it is felt apposite to have a quick run through the facts relating to the long journey that the lis has undertaken which would also throw light as to how and for what reason, the execution proceeding has not been culminated despite lapse of more than nineteen years, few months left to reach two decades, providing justification to the general impression of the litigant public that the miseries start after obtaining the decree and its only few fortunate decree holders who actually enjoy the real fruit of the decree during their life time.

The opposite party as the plaintiff filed a suit in the trial court i.e. O.S. No.59 of 1983 for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit schedule ‘B’ and ’C’ property and for eviction of the petitioner-defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from the property described in schedule - ‘B’ with other ancillary relief. The petitioners defended the suit by asserting in the written statement that they have purchased the property described in Schedule ‘B’ for valuable consideration by registered sale deeds and as such are the owners of the same. An alternative plea had also been taken as regards acquisition of the title over the said suit property by way of adverse possession. The suit standing decreed; the opposite party as the decree holder shortly thereafter initiated the execution proceeding which was numbered as Execution Case No.109 of 1999. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner-defendants (judgment debtors) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the opposite party, carried the first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, Code) before the Court of District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar which stood numbered as T.A. No.8/7 of 2002/1999. In the said appeal the ground of questioning the judgment and decree was the non-consideration of the alternative case projected by the petitioner-defendants to have acquired the right, title and interest by way of adverse possession. They claimed that having remained in possession of the property for upward of the prescribed period exercising the rights as owners by denying the title of the true owner to the knowledge of all including the true owner, when they have acquired right, title and interest over the said suit property, that had not been duly considered by the trial court. The first appeal did yield no fruitful result to them. Then questioning the judgment and decree passed in the said first appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the petitioners further approached this Court by filing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code standing numbered as R.S.A. No.118 of 2002.During pendency of the appeal, the opposite party-plaintiff filed a petition for appointment of receiver in respect of the properties involved in the suit. The court appointed petitioner No.1-defendant No.1 as the receiver in so far as the sc