Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred by the above named judgment debtor-petitioner against the order dated 7.11.1992 passed by the Munsif, Jamshedpur in Execution Case No. 24/86, whereby and where under the petition filed under Sec. 47 C.P.C. was rejected outright without even registering as a Misc. Case. 2. The facts of the case are a bit complicated. The decree holder-Opposite party, Smt. Mahendra Kaur filed Title Suit No. 64 of 1974 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land measuring an area of one bigha three kathas and three dhurs appertaining to portion of plot No. 540 under khata No. 1 of Mouza Pardih. In that suit, the petitioner judgment debtor, Md. Mustafa alongwith one Abdul Sattar were the defendants. The suit was decreed and the decree was sought for execution in Execution Case No. 61/77. In that Case, a compromise petition was filed on 12.2.1984 between the decree holder and one of the judgment debtor, Abdul Sattar. On delivery of possession of some portion of the suit land in view of the compromise being arrived at the execution case was dismissed by order dated 24.1.1985. It was admitted, as has been submitted in the Bar that the execution case was dismissed on part satisfaction of decree. It is stated that the decree holder-Opposite party had sold away more than the decreetal lands to different persons and practically there remained no scope of any delivery of possession/recovery of possession from any of the judgment debtors. But, in 1986 second execution case No. 24 of 1986 was filed and an amendment was prayed in the execution petition regarding boundary of the decreetal land. It may be mentioned here that in the second execution petition, Only a part of the decreetal land was mentioned and its boundary was sought to be introduced in the second execution petition. On being refused of such prayer, a revision petition was preferred before this Court. It may be mentioned here that in the second execution petition, Only a part of the decreetal land was mentioned and its boundary was sought to be introduced in the second execution petition. On being refused of such prayer, a revision petition was preferred before this Court. It must also be mentioned here that in this second execution petition, execution was sought for against one of the judgment debtor, namely, the petitioner and the revision petition being preferred before this Court by the Opposite party in Civil Revision No. 379/92(R), a direction was given by this Court in the following manner : - In this view of the matter, learned Court is directed to apply his mind afresh and consider as to whether even for the purpose of disposal of the Opposite partys objection under Sec. 47 C.P.C. the petitioners application for amendment of the execution petition would be relevant or not. In other words, if it is found that even if the application for amendment of the execution petition is allowed still then the objection filed by the judgment debtor-Opposite party can be allowed, on the ground of vagueness of the decree or otherwise, he should consider the application for amendment of the execution petition on merit before deciding objection under Sec. 47 C.P.C. This application is disposed of with the aforementioned observation direction. 3. After remand, it appears that the amendment was allowed and the petition under Sec. 47 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor was rejected forthwith without registering a Misc. Case. 4. The executability of the part decree has been questioned in this petition under Sec. 47 C.P.C. and also maintainability with regard to balance of the decreetal land being splited up in the second execution petition. It appears from the arguments being placed by the learned Counsel for both the parties that the learned court below could not appreciate the controversial point in dispute as raised in the petition under Sec. 47 C.P.C. There was a previous execution and the same the dismissed on part satisfaction as is revealed from the order. If on part satisfaction, the decree holder was satisfied and when no liberty was given to the decree holder to proceed afresh for the balance of the decreetal reliefs, whether the second execution petition is maintainable or not is the vital question to be decided. If on part satisfaction, the decree holder was satisfied and when no liberty was given to the decree holder to proceed afresh for the balance of the decreetal reliefs, whether the second execution petition is maintainable or not is the vital question to be decided. It is further to be decided whether the balance land for which the execution petition has been filed whether falls within the decreetal lands or not, and whether, the balance land for which second execution petition has been filed has already been sold away by the decree holder. Mahendra Kaur. All these points as mentioned above, can only be decided after registering a case as Misc. Case under Sec. 47 C.P.C. after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and if necessary giving liberty of adducing evidence from both the sides. Such rejection of petition under Section 47 C.P.C. in the nature and circumstances of the case forthwith, without giving an opportunity of being heard and without going deep into the matter, is definitely an error of law committed by the learned court below. 5. The impugned order is hereby set aside and the case is sent back to the lower court with the direction to register a Misc. Case on the petition filed under Sec. 47 C.P.C. and then proceed, according to the law, as per discussions made and direction given above. The Revision petition is thus allowed, but no order as to costs.