Judgment : ( 1 ) HEARD the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the last part of the order dated 6-8-2005 passed by learned munsif II.-Dhanbad in Execution Case No. 3 of 1994 whereby the petitioners application, purportedly filed under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. ( 2 ) ON perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the decree, which is sought to be executed, was passed in Title Eviction suit No. 10 of 1970 whereby the plaintiffs suit for eviction on the ground of default and personal necessity was decreed. The said suit was fought up to the Supreme Court and the tenants lost at all the stages. Subsequently, execution was levied to execute the decree. At this stage also he filed the application under the purported provisions of Order XXI, Rules 97 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying therein to drop the execution proceeding. It was stated that the applicant has acquired 1. 5 decimals of land, more or less, from the ex-landlord by virtue of a settlement and thereafter his name was mutated and he has been paying rent in respect of the said land. Learned court below considered the petitioners claim and found that in the suit which was decreed, the area of the land is 5 decimals and the boundary is also different. Learned Court further observed that after about 36 years of long litigation (which the petitioner lost upto the Supreme Court) when the decree is sought to be executed, this application has been deliberately filed. He held that the application does not come within the ambit of Rules 97 and 99 of the Code of Civil procedure and rejected the said application. ( 3 ) MR. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the applicant has produced several documents and as such the case should have been registered as miscellaneous case and the claim made by the petitioner should have been adjudicated and should not have been rejected in limine. ( 4 ) MR. S. N. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has been set. ( 4 ) MR. S. N. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has been set. up by the judgment debtor only in order to obstruct the execution process and to further delay and deprive the decree-holder of the fruit of the decree even after the protracted litigation for more than three decades. Learned counsel submitted that the documents brought on record by the petitioner are related to the land of different description which have no concern with the land of the decree-holder. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parlies and perusing the record. I find that the petitioner has claimed that he is the owner of the building which is sought to be vacated in favour of the decree-holder, but he has not brought any document in support of his claim. He has produced a deed of settlement and a correction slip, which is with respect to the land of different description. There is nothing on record to show that the said document has any concern with the suit land, which has got different area and boundary. The Court below has considered the objection of the judgment debtor and the document produced in support thereof and has passed a well reasoned order. I find no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order of the Court below warranting intervention by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of india. There is. therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .