Judgment Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner was the defendant in a partition suit. The plaintiff-decree holder has appeared through Mr. Triloki Nath Maitin, learned senior counsel. The prayer of the defendant-petitioner was that in the partition suit at the instance of the plaintiff share of the parties were defined. In the final decree such properties allotted to each member of the family was clearly specified. The plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for and institutiution of execution proceeding for demarcation and delivery of possession to him. The defendant in the said proceeding appeared and demanded that on payment of requisite court fee and other levy the aforesaid share of his property as per the final decree be also made and executed. This has been rejected by the executing court on the ground that the suit and decree being in favour of the plaintiff it cannot be executed as such in favour of the defendant. I have heard the parties. Mr. Maitin has very fairly conceded that so far as reliefs are concerned they have been fully granted by the court below and he is not aggrieved by that. In respect of the relief prayed for by the defendant-petitioner he again very fairly comments that granting him any such relief does not prejudicially effect him in any manner but he is only objecting or rather insisted the court as to the proper procedure which ought to have been taken by the defendant. According to him as the final decree had been prepared and in course thereof defendant-petitioners share also carved out it was proper for the defendant-petitioner to move the trial court for a final decree in respect of his share on payment of requisite court feeand requisite stamp paper. If this was done then this being a partition suit the court would then be obliged to draw up a final decree in respect of the property moveable and immovable allotted to the defendant-petitioner and on such final decree being drawn up the same should have been executed but the defendant-petitioner could not in an execution proceeding instituted by the plaintiff get the execution in favour of the defendant. 3. Mr. Maitin, I think is correct and no exception can be taken to the said procedure. 3. Mr. Maitin, I think is correct and no exception can be taken to the said procedure. Result is that the defendant-petitioner was trying a short cut to reach the same and ultimately he had agreed to pay the court fee and other lew but route taken by him was not sanctioned by law. In the aforesaid circumstances I direct the defednant-petitioner to file an application before the learned Sub Judge 1st. Munger for preparation of a final decree in his favour as per the final decree already prepared in favour of the plaintiff. He would be entitled to pay such stamp duty and court fee as required by the court for the said purpose. It would thereafter be open to him to institute a fresh execution proceeding for the decree preparation in his favour. As there is no dispute amongst the parties, it is hoped that if such an application is filed the same would be proceeded expeditiously by the court concerned. The defedant-petitioner apprehends that if the present execution proceedings are closed on being satisfied a fresh execution proceeding arising out of the same case may not be entertained by the court. I may only clarify that once the defendant-petitioner prays for a separarte final decree in his favour then the said decree would have to be executed and till such time it is not executed. It cannot be said that the decree in the case stands satisfied. Mr. Maitin has no objection as to the said observation. 4. This civil revision application is disposed of and the impugned order dated 22.3.2005 passed in Title Execution No. 7/95 by Sub Judge-1st Class. Munger, is hereby set aside.