Judgment S.N.Hussain, J. 1. All these three civil revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In the above mentioned three civil revisions petitioners are the same and have challenged various orders at different stages of Execution Case No. 136/1965, which had arisen out of Money Suit No. 61 of 1956 filed by the sole opposite party, who is common in all the three revisions, for realisation of money from the petitioners firm, namely M/s. Basudeo Prasad Chiranjilal. The said suit was decreed on 3.1.1957 by the Civil Judge I, Kanpur for a sum of Rs. 26,056.00 to be paid by the defendants-judgment debtors (petitioners) to the plaintiff- decreeholder (Opposite party). However, the said matter was transferred from Kanpur to 1st Subordinate Judge, Motihari (East Champaran) for execution of the said decree, which was numbered as Execution Case No. 8 of 1958. The said execution case was dismissed on part satisfaction of the decree, whereafter Execution Case No. 136/1965 was filed for satisfaction of the remaining decretal amount. 3. The said execution case continued and for the remaining part of the decree/auction sale was held on 17.9.1971 and finally the said sale was confirmed on 1.11.1971, which was challenged in this Court but it affirmed the said order. Thereafter on 20.7.1972 the plaintiff-decreeholder (opposite party filed a petition for delivery of possession, whereafter D.P was issued and affected on 2.2.1975. Against the said D.P. Mis. Case No. 17/1975 was filed by the judgment debtor claiming that the boundary given was defective and unidentifiable whereafter by order dated 5.1.1979 the said D.P. was set aside. In the said circumstances the decreeholder filed amendment petitions giving correct boundary in the execution case but the judgment debtors did objected to it, whereafter the said amendment was allowed by the Executing Court on 12.10.1985 which was never challenged. 4. Thereafter the matter continued and on 17.5.1993 the decreeholder (opposite party) filed a petition for amendment in the sale certificate dated 1.11.1971 with respect to southern boundary of the land detailed in the said certificate, which was not amended earlier. This petition has been allowed by the leaned Subordinate Judge, Motihari in Execution Case No. 136/1965 by order dated 13.6.2002, which is impugned in-Civil Revision No. 904 of 2002. 5. This petition has been allowed by the leaned Subordinate Judge, Motihari in Execution Case No. 136/1965 by order dated 13.6.2002, which is impugned in-Civil Revision No. 904 of 2002. 5. After the said order formalities of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code for the sake of brevity) and the relevant provisions were complied by the decreeholder with respect to issuance and service of notice and nomination of Commissioner etc. and hence by order dated 25.6.2002 passed in the said Execution Case No. 136/1965 the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Motihari issued writ and notice for execution of DP. This order is impugned in Civil Revision No. 957 of 2002. 6. It transpires that after the aforesaid developments the defendants-judgment debtors (petitioner) raised objection before the learned District Judge, Motihari (East Champaran) alleging that there was interpolation in the Parwana and the also filed an application dated 8.7.2002 before the Executing Court on which Misc. Case No. 08/2002 was instituted and an enquiry was initiated. None of the parties gave any oral evidence and only some documents were produced in support of their respective versions and finally the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Motihari (East Champaran) found that the petitioners themselves conspired in making forgery in the certified copy of the sale proclamation dated 23.7.1971 and used the same knowing it to be a forged document and hence the directed that a complaint be filed against the petitioners and dismissed their miscellaneous case by order dated 22.7.2002, which is impugned in Civil Revision No. 1477 of 2002. 7. After considering the arguments raised by the parties and after perusing the materials on record it is quite apparent that Money Suit No. 61 of 1956 was decreed on 3.1.1957 in favour of the opposite party, whereafter Execution Case No. 8 of 1958 was filed for its execution, but it was disposed of only on part satisfaction of the decree and hence execution case No. 136 of 1965 was filed for execution of the rest of the decree i.e. remaining decretal amount in which auction sale was held and confirmed by the Executing Court, which was also affirmed by the High Court as far back as in the year 1972. 8. 8. It is also clear from the records that delivery of possession was issued and affected in the year 1975 but the same was set aside in the year 1979 due to unidentifiable boundaries given by the decreholder, hence in the said circumstance the decree-holder filed petition for amendment of execution petition giving clear boundaries, which was not objected by the judgment debtor (petitioners) and was allowed by the Executing Court and was never challenged before any Court. 9. Hence in the aforesaid circumstances, it was necessary in the ends of justice that the sale certificate also should have been amended and for that purpose an amendment petition was filed by the decree-holder, which was rightly allowed by the learned Court below vide impugned order dated 13.6.2002 as the execution proceeding had not concluded. Furthermore after completion of all the aforesaid formalities it was also necessary in the ends of justice that the execution case should proceed further and hence it was incumbent upon the Court below to issue writ and notices for the execution of delivery of possession which he rightly did by the other impugned order dated 25.6.2002. In the aforesaid circumstances the aforementioned two orders of the Executing Court challenged in C.R. No. 904/2002 and Cr. No. 957/2002 are, in my view, quite legal and justified and I do not find any jurisdictional error therein. 10. The decree in the suit is already about five decades old and the execution case is also lingering since long, clearly due to the efforts of as well as to the benefit of the judgment debtors (petitioner), as a result of which the decree-holder (opposite party) is put to undue harassment for such a long period during which he has been deprived of the full fruit of the decree. Hence the learned Court below is directed to expedite the proceeding and bring the execution case to its logical, legal and final conclusion without any further delay. 11. So far order dated 22.7.2002 passed in Misc. Hence the learned Court below is directed to expedite the proceeding and bring the execution case to its logical, legal and final conclusion without any further delay. 11. So far order dated 22.7.2002 passed in Misc. Case No. 8/2002, which is under challenge in C.R. No. 1477/2002, is concerned, the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Motihari held that the petitioners (judgment debtors) themselves conspired in making forged entries in the certified copy of the proclamation of sale dated 23.7.1971 and used the same knowing it to be a forged document and accordingly directed that a complaint be filed for instituting a criminal case against the petitioners-judgment debtors. 12. From the said order, it appears that the learned Court below has passed an order of conviction, whereafter only sentence remains to be passed without any enquiry under Secs. 195 or 340 of the Cr PC. I my considered view the Court below had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and even in the impugned order to provision of law is mentioned under which the petitioners can legally be prosecuted. In this connection reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Virendra Kumar Satyawadi V/s. The State of Punjab, reported in -. It is also apparent that it was the petitioners (judgment debtors) who demanded enquiry alleging forgery in the original sale proclamation against the decree-holder, which was never done by the learned Court below and although the opposite party (decree-holder) had filed no petition to hold enquiry against the petitioners (judgment debtors) but even then the Court passed the impugned order against the petitioners, without referring to any reliable material. 13. The Court below did not realise that as per the petitioners claim the entire plot measured 1 bigha 1 katha 19 dhurs, out of which only 2 kathas 10 dhurs were auction sold and nowhere any mention of 11 Kathas 7 Dhurs was made, which was imaginary land created by the opposite party and in that view of the matter the sale proclamation regarding south-west had become important as the sale was only with respect to vacant land and no mention of any construction on the western side was made and hence the western constructed portion should have been excluded from 2 kathas 10 dhurs of land as there was no sale of proclamation etc. with respect to the truncated piece of western land containing construction, but in the original proclamation of sale attached in the record the word Pachhim-Dakhin was superimposed by blue ink overwriting on red ink without any signature of the correcting authority, which according to the petitioners was done for the benefit for the decree-holder, who wanted the construction portion also to be included in the lands auction sold. He had further contended that the certified copy of the proclamation of sale clearly proved the forgery committed on behalf of the decree-holder but the petitioners could not produce the same in the Court due to apprehension of bias attitude of the Court. 14. Without considering the facts of the case as well as the claim of the judgment debtors (Petitioners) in the light of the materials on record and without conducting any appropriate enquiry or investigation into the matter the Court below wrongly came to a finding, which was not based on any sufficient material, and held the petitioners guilty of forgery. It may be further pointed out that fraud or forgery has to be fully proved by the party alleging the same, but here the opposite party did not claim any such illegality against the petitioners nor sufficient material has been shown to prove the same. In the instant case the matter was other way round as it were the petitioners who alleged fraud and forgery against the opposite party and if they were unable to prove it the Court below could have simply rejected the same and on that basis the Court was not justified to hold petitioners to be guilty of fraud and forgery. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of the learned Court below dated 22.7.2002 passed in Misc. Case No. 8/2000 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Motihari (East Champaran) who will rehear the miscellaneous case and after reconsidering the materials on record will decide the same in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with the provisions of law. With the aforesaid directions C.R. No. 1477 of 2002 is allowed, whereas C.R. No. 904 of 2002 and C.R. No. 957 of 2002 are dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of these cases there would be no order as to cost.