JUDGMENT : M.Y. Eqbal, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the Opposite party despite service of notice. 2. This Civil Revision application is directed against the ORDER :dated 22.4.1997 passed by the Munsif, 1st, Begusarai, in Title (Execution) Case no. 11 of 1996, by which he rejected the application dated 26.3.1997 filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of delivery of possession. 3. It appears that the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 8 of 1996 for eviction of the defendant -Opposite party from the suit premises and the said suit was decreed on 23.11.1996. The petitioner put the decree in execution in Execution Case no. 11 of 1996 and made a prayer for issuance of a writ of delivery of possession. Accordingly, the writ for effecting delivery of possession was issued and the petitioner was put in possession on 23.11.1996 by evicting the defendant-Opposite party from the suit premises with the help of the police and the Magistrate. The petitioner after getting possession started business in the said premises. However, within very short period, on 13.3.1997 the JUDGMENT : debtor-Opposite party with the help of some other persons broke open the lock of the shop premises and took away all the articles from the shop and dispossessed the petitioner. The Decree holder-petitioner lodged FIR in Begusarai Police Station and a case was registered vide Begusarai P.S. case no. 79 of 1997. The petitioner therefore filed application in the court below for issuance of writ of delivery of possession stating the aforesaid facts. The court below after hearing the petition rejected the prayer holding that once the Decree holder is put in possession in pursuance of the issuance of writ of delivery of possession the decree become satisfied and no fresh writ of delivery of possession can be issued in the event of dispossession of the Decree holder. 4. From the perusal of the ORDER :it does not appear the allegations made by the Decree holder in the subsequent application was denied and dispute by the JUDGMENT :-debtor. As stated above no one appears on behalf of J. Dr. Opposite party to controvert the grounds set forth by the Degree holder petitioner. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the court below has not taken correct approach of law and has failed to exercise its jurisdiction. As stated above no one appears on behalf of J. Dr. Opposite party to controvert the grounds set forth by the Degree holder petitioner. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the court below has not taken correct approach of law and has failed to exercise its jurisdiction. As noticed above, delivery of possession was effected on 2.3.1997 but a few days thereafter the JUDGMENT : debtor with the help of his muscle men forcibly dispossessed the Decree holder from the suit premises. There is nothing on the record to show that the report of the Nazir and the Pleader Commissioner regarding delivery of possession was finally accepted by the executing court and the execution case was disposed of. In such circumstances, the court below ought to have issued writ of delivery of possession in ORDER :to give full justice to the Decree Holder. If the view taken by the court below is accepted, then there will be total miscarriage of justice and such decree holder shall be deprived of the fruit of the decree at the hands of the JUDGMENT : debtor by adopting the practice of forceful dispossession after the Decree Holder, is put in possession in execution of decree. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, this Civil revision application is allowed and the impugned ORDER :is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the court below to pass a fresh ORDER :of issuance of writ of delivery of possession in accordance with law.