JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik dated 31-5-2007 in Appeals filed by the various Respondents herein relating to the execution of the decree which decree is in favour of the petitioners abovenamed. The said Appeals were filed against the order of the Collector, Ahmednagar dated 25-8-2006 by which order the Collector had decided the manner in which the decree was to be executed. 3. The petitioners are the heirs of one Mahadu Narayan Pawar. The said Mahadu had purchased some lands from one Chotibee who was the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1956 which she had filed for partition and possession of agricultural lands bearing survey No. 46/2, 47/6, 48/6, 53/1B, 133/3, 52/1, 52/2, 131 and 50/4 situated at Chahurana Bk., taluka and district Ahmednagar and one house property. The said suit was filed against Chotibee against her mother Mamulabee and others. Pending the said suit, Chotibee sold her shares in the six lands bearing survey Nos.47/6, 48/6, 53/1B, 133/3, 52/1, 52/2 to the said Mahadu Narayan Pawar on 25-5-1957 and in pursuance of the said sale deed, Mahadu was impleaded as plaintiff No.2 in the said suit. The said Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1956 was decreed and it was held that Chotibee has 7/8th share while Mamulabee has 1/8th share in the entire suit property. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed in the said Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1956, the original defendants Nos.7 and 8; Sakharam Mahadu Misal and Ramchandra Gopinath Misal, who had purchased land survey Nos. 52/1, 52/2 and 53(1)(b) from Mamulabee filed First Appeal No. 78 of 1958 and 79 of 1958 in this Court which was decided on 24-9-1963 and the decree passed in the said Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1956 was modified to a certain extent. The sum and substance of the said modification was that the land purchased by the defendants Nos.7 and 8 from the defendant No.1 Mamulabee was directed to be assigned to her share. The sum and substance of the said modification was that the land purchased by the defendants Nos.7 and 8 from the defendant No.1 Mamulabee was directed to be assigned to her share. If the same was not possible, the lower Court was directed to assign as much land as out of survey No.52/1, 52/2 and 53/1B to the defendant No.1 in consideration of her house and other lands. As to the rest of the share, the plaintiff was entitled to receive compensation from defendants Nos. 7 and 8. The decree further directed that in so far as the defendants Nos.7 and 8 were concerned, the issue of their tenancy was referred to the Mamlatdar and on the decision of the said issue, certain consequences were to follow. The decree of the trial Court was, therefore, modified in the First Appeal filed by the original defendants No.7 and 8. 5. It appears that Special Darkhast No.6 of 1965 came to be filed by the petitioners for getting the said decree executed. However, the said proceedings did not commence for a considerable period of time and consequently, Special Darkhast No. 57 of 1977 came to be filed as the papers in the original Darkhast No. 6 of 1965 were not traceable. Since according to the petitioner, no steps were being taken for execution of the decree passed in the year 1963, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002 in respect of the execution of the said decree. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by directing the Collector to execute the decree himself and the execution to be completed within one year. Apart from the said direction, certain other directions were issued which are contained in paragraph 5, 6 and 7 of the said judgment. The sum and substance of the directions was that the parties were eligible to raise their contentions in the execution proceedings before the Collector. The Collector was directed to adjust the equities to the extent they are to be adjusted. After the disposal of the said petition, Civil Applications came to be filed for intervention and review. The sum and substance of the directions was that the parties were eligible to raise their contentions in the execution proceedings before the Collector. The Collector was directed to adjust the equities to the extent they are to be adjusted. After the disposal of the said petition, Civil Applications came to be filed for intervention and review. One such Civil Application was No. 7701 of 2005, by which Civil Application, an apprehension was expressed on behalf of the applicant that the objections raised, may not be considered by the Collector in view of the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition and, therefore, review of the order passed in the said Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002 was sought. The said Civil Application was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 30-9-2005. Whilst disposing of the said Civil Application, the Division Bench reiterated what was earlier held in the writ petition namely; that all objections in regard to the execution to be raised before the Collector and the Collector is also directed to consider the said objections. The Division Bench further expressed that it had no iota of doubt that the Collector will execute the modified/(amended) decree after taking into consideration and after adjudicating the objections raised by the objectors. The Division Bench, therefore, did not deem it fit to recall the order passed in the writ petition and the Civil Application was accordingly dismissed.It appears that thereafter Civil Applications on the similar lines as Civil Application No. 7701 of 2005 came to be filed which were all dismissed. However, the Civil Applications filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra for extension of time to execute the decree were granted and time was extended on two occasions for execution of the decree. A Special Leave Petition was filed by one of the Interveners being Mangala Sharad Mutha challenging the order dated 12-7-2004 passed in the said Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002 and the Order dated 30-9-2005 passed in Civil Application No. 7701 of 2005. The said Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed by the Apex Court. 6. The Collector, Ahmednagar proceeded to hear the objections of the various parties and by his order dated 25th August 2006 disposed of the said objections. The said Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed by the Apex Court. 6. The Collector, Ahmednagar proceeded to hear the objections of the various parties and by his order dated 25th August 2006 disposed of the said objections. The said order also contained a statement showing how the partition of the various lands which were the subject matter of the decree was to be effected. The objectors thereafter being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector dated 25-8-2006 filed 17 Appeals before the Additional Commissioner, Nashik, who is the superior authority. The said Appeals were filed inter alia on various grounds urged in the said Appeals but primarily on the ground that the decree is not being executed in terms of the modified decree passed by the Civil Court in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the First Appeals. It was the contention of the Appellants in the said Appeals that the Collector has proceeded post haste on account of the directions issued by this Court in the said Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002 and without really taking into consideration the objections which go to the root of the matter, since, according to the petitioners, the Appeals filed by the Interveners were not being proceeded with. The petitioners filed Contempt Petition No. 210 of 2005 alleging contempt of the order passed in the said Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002. The said Contempt Petition came to be disposed of by this Court by directing the Additional Commissioner to dispose of the Appeals expeditiously. Consequent to the order passed in the Contempt Petition, the Additional Commissioner disposed of the said Appeals by allowing them and remanding the matter back to the Collector for consideration afresh in the light of the observations made in the said order. It is this order of remand which is challenged by the petitioners abovenamed. Affidavits in reply have been filed by various Respondents, opposing the above petition. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the various Respondents. It is this order of remand which is challenged by the petitioners abovenamed. Affidavits in reply have been filed by various Respondents, opposing the above petition. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the various Respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Shri Hon, at the outset, submitted that the Appeals filed by the Respondents were not maintainable as the Collector was executing the decree pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002 and which was reiterated and re-affirmed by the orders passed in various Civil Applications filed on behalf of the Interveners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in the alternative submitted that assuming that the Appeals were maintainable, they could not have been filed by the Respondents who were not parties to the suit and the decrees. According to the learned Counsel, the Collector had rightly passed the order dated 25-8-2006 in furtherence of the execution of the decree and had alloted shares in the lands as per the statement reproduced in the order. It was the submission of the learned Counsel that the order of the Collector was in consonance with the decree. The learned Counsel further submitted that assuming the Additional Commissioner, Nasik had the jurisdiction to entertain the Appeals in setting aside the order passed by the Collector, he has travelled beyond the decree. The learned Counsel submitted that the objections of the Interveners were considered by the Division Bench whilst passing the order dated 12-7-2004 in Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002 and the orders passed on the Civil Applications by different Interveners which had also been confirmed by the Apex Court. 8. The learned Counsel further submitted that since most of the Respondents are claiming through the Misals, they cannot have a better right than the Misals and since the issue of tenancy which has been referred to the Mamlatdar by the modified decree has been decided against the Misals, the legal consequences as mentioned in the decree had to follow. The learned Counsel submitted that the objection petitions and the Appeals are nothing but an attempt to stall the execution proceedings so that the decree holders do not enjoy the fruits of the decree. The learned Counsel submitted that the objection petitions and the Appeals are nothing but an attempt to stall the execution proceedings so that the decree holders do not enjoy the fruits of the decree. The learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, (Swatanter Kumar, J. as he then was), reported in A.I.R. 1998 P.& H. p. 202 in the matter of Rocky Tyres, Chandigarh and others v. Ajit Jain and another, in which it has been held that it is the duty of the execution Court that when it finds the objection prima facie appearing to be frivolous, vexatious and intended to delay execution and would amount to abuse of process of Court, the Court is liable to put such objections to trial. The learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 2002 S.C. p. 2603 in the matter of Narinder Singh and others, v. Kishan Singh (dead) by L.R.s and others, wherein the Apex Court has held that the Execution Court has the power to reject the plea which tries to defeat the ends of justice. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 2002 S.C.W. 2914 in the matter of Narinder Singh and others, vs. Sarabjit Singh and others, wherein the Apex Court has held that the objections raised for the first time at the stage of execution are liable to be rejected as most of the time, the said objections are in nature of last ditch effort by judgment debtors to prevent decree holders from getting full benefit of the decree. Relying upon the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is the submission of Shri Hon that the order passed by the Collector ought not to have been interfered with. 9. On behalf of the Respondents, the arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel Shri R. R. Mantri, which were adopted by the other Counsel with some additions. In so far as the maintainability of the Appeal was concerned, the learned Counsel for the Respondents Nos.30 and 31, Shri Mantri submitted that the decree is being executed in terms of Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revene Code. In so far as the maintainability of the Appeal was concerned, the learned Counsel for the Respondents Nos.30 and 31, Shri Mantri submitted that the decree is being executed in terms of Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revene Code. In so far as the said provisions are concerned, according to the learned Counsel, it is a well settled position in law that an Appeal is maintainable. The learned Counsel relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1968 Bombay p. 198 in the matter of Paygonda Survgonda Patil and others v. Jingonda Surgonda Patil and others. In the said judgment though the provisions of the old Bombay Land Revenue Code were in contention, the present provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code being pari materia to the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the said decision would apply with full force. It has been held in the said judgment that a decision or order made by the Collector in effecting a partition of revenue paying lands in execution of the decree passed by a Civil Court is subject to an appeal to the Commissioner under Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and is also revisable under Section 211 thereof. The learned Counsel further relied upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 1992 Mh.L.J. p. 262 in the matter of Khajabhai s/o. Abdullasaheb Lukade and others v. Mohammed Ishaq s/o. Abdullasaheb Lukade and others. The said judgment was renderred under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench reported in A.I.R. 1968 Bombay p. 198 cited supra. Para 5 of the said judgment is material and is reproduced hereinunder : 5. First I will consider the question raised about the remedies available to the petitioner. Provision in section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that a gazetted Officr subordinate to the Collector can be asked by the Collector to execute the decree, do not indicate that any order passed by such an Officer would be that of the Collector. First I will consider the question raised about the remedies available to the petitioner. Provision in section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that a gazetted Officr subordinate to the Collector can be asked by the Collector to execute the decree, do not indicate that any order passed by such an Officer would be that of the Collector. Section 247(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, reads thus :- " In the absence of any express provisions of this Code, or of any law for the time being in force to the contrary, an appeal shall lie from any decision or order passed by a revenue or survey officer specified in column 1 of the Schedule E under this Code or any other law for the time being in force to the officer specified in column 2 of that Schedule whether or not such decision or order may itself have been passed on appeal from the decision of order of the officer specified in column 1 of the said Schedule: Provided that, in no case the number of appeals shall exceed two." It gives a right of appeal in respect of any decision or order passed by a revenue or survey officer specified in column 1 of Schedule E under the Land Revenue Code or any other law for the time being in force to the officers specified in column 2. Orders passed by the Revenue Officers under section 54 Civil Procedure Code have not been made exception to the general right given by Sub-section (1) of section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. This being the position, Tahsildar or any other Revenue Officer executing a partition decree would be a Revenue Officer subjected to a right of appeal as per Schedule E read with section 247. Tahsildar being an Officer subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer, an appeal should have been filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer’s observation that he had no right to hear the appeal is totally incorrect. Learned Addl. Commissioner, Aurangabad, has rightly taken a view that a second appeal was maintainable to the Collector. 10. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of the law laid down by this Court, there is no merit in the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as regards the maintainability of the Appeals. Learned Addl. Commissioner, Aurangabad, has rightly taken a view that a second appeal was maintainable to the Collector. 10. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of the law laid down by this Court, there is no merit in the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as regards the maintainability of the Appeals. It was next contended by Shri Mantri that the order of remand passed by the Additional Commissioner could not be faulted with in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel submitted that the decree which was to be executed was the decree modified in terms of the orders passed in the First Appeals No.78 of 1958 and 79 of 1958. The executing Court was, therefore, obliged to see to it that the modified decree is executed which was also directed by the Division Bench of this Court by orders passed in the said Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002 and Civil Application No. 7710 of 2005. The learned Counsel submitted that in view of the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002 directing the Collector to himself execute the decree and complete the process within one year, the Collector has proceeded to execute the decree in a mechanical manner without taking into consideration the objections filed by the Respondents. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference made by the Collector to the executing Court by his letter dated 21-6-2006 was turned down by the executing Court on the ground that the Court had become functus officio. This, according to the learned Counsel, was an erroneous approach in view of the order passed by the Division Bench in the said Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002 and in view of the settled position in law that the Civil Court has to see to it that the Collector follows the decretal mandate. The learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the refusal of the Court to issue clarification/orders. the Collector proceeded to execute the decree in the manner he has done which is contrary to what was intended in the modified decree. The learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the refusal of the Court to issue clarification/orders. the Collector proceeded to execute the decree in the manner he has done which is contrary to what was intended in the modified decree. The learned Counsel submitted that the properties which were deleted on account of the orders passed on Exhibits 14 and 17 in the said Darkhast were also taken up for partition as also the properties of the original defendants Nos.3 and 4 who were deleted from the said suit. So also the share of Hasan Babu Zarekari, who is the assignee of the decree from Mahadu has not been considered by the Collector. The issue of compensation to be awarded in lieu of lands has also not been considered. So also the execution of the decree in the teeth of the Notification issued declaring certain lands as notified slum. 11. The learned Counsel further submitted that the bogey of delay is raised by the petitioners just to prejudice this Court. In fact, it is the petitioners themselves who have delayed the execution of the decree. The learned Counsel submitted that though the execution was filed in the year 1977 and an application was made in the year 1981 to include the name of said Hasan Babu Zarekari as decree holder in view of the assignment to him by Mahadu, no attempt was made by the petitioners to get the said application decided and consequently, the said application filed by the said Zarekari was decided in the year 1998 and the Darkhast was amended in the year 1998 to include the name of said Zarekari as decree holder No.3. The learned Counsel further submitted that thereafter the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002, after a lapse of about four years and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel, blame for delay, if any, in execution of the decree could only lay at the doors of the petitioners. The learned Counsel lastly submitted that this Court whilst disposing of Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002 or the Civil Application filed by the Intervener had not concluded that the Respondents had directed that objections could be filed before the Collector and the Collector was bound to decide them in accordance with law. The learned Counsel lastly submitted that this Court whilst disposing of Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002 or the Civil Application filed by the Intervener had not concluded that the Respondents had directed that objections could be filed before the Collector and the Collector was bound to decide them in accordance with law. The Collector having decided the said objections incorrectly, the Respondents were entitled to challenge the order before the higher authority in terms of the law laid down by this Court cited supra. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the remand made to the Collector on the points referred to in the said order was perfectly justified and warranted. The learned Counsel lastly submitted that the grounds on which the matter is remanded back to the Collector arises out of the execution of the amended decree and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Additional Commissioner has travelled beyond the decree. The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the above petition. 12. Shri Dhorde, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3, adopted the arguments of Shri Mantri and made the following additional submissions. It was submitted by Shri Dhorde vide assignment dated 1-10-1981, the said Mahadu Narayan Pawar has assigned his share in the suit properties to the Respondent No.3, Hasan Babu Zarekari. The application of the Respondent No.3 made for adding him as a party to the Darkhast proceedings was supported by the application filed by the petitioners before the executing Court stating that he has transferred all his rights in the decree as per the assignment dated 1-10-1981. The said application filed by the Respondent No.3 was allowed by the executing Court on 1-3-1998 and the name of the Respondent No.3 was added as a decree holder. Inspite of the same, the Collector in his order has not granted the share of the Respondent No.3 though he is a decree holder. The Additional Commissioner, according to Shri Dhorde, has rightly set aside the order of the Collector on the said ground. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 further submitted that the legal heirs of Chotibee and Mamulabee have also executed another assignment dated 12-3-1984 and the Respondent No.3 consequently has become owner of some other properties other than the ones covered by the assignment deed dated 1.10.1981. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 further submitted that the legal heirs of Chotibee and Mamulabee have also executed another assignment dated 12-3-1984 and the Respondent No.3 consequently has become owner of some other properties other than the ones covered by the assignment deed dated 1.10.1981. The said issue, therefore, ought to have been gone into by the Collector whilst executing the decree which he has failed to do. The learned Counsel submitted that the claim of the Respondent No.3 is considered only in respect of two lands and not others. The learned Counsel further submitted that the assignee is not required to wait for his share till the decree holder gets his share but is entitled to his share in terms of Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which postulates that an assignee of a decree is entitled to his share in the same manner as the decree holder. 13. Shri S. V. Gangapurwala, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3, i.e. the Court Receiver appointed in respect of the one of the properties, contended that the Court Receiver had filed an Intervention Application which came to be dismissed by observing that the objections to the execution of the decree could be raised before the Collector. The Court Receiver had accordingly filed his objections and the same ought to have been considered by the Court. It is the contention of Shri Gangapurwala that, in the instant case, the Collector ought to have obtained the permission of the Court and the decree could not have been executed without the leave of the Court. The learned Counsel further submitted that though certain properties have been excluded vide orders on Exhibits 14 and 17 in the said Special Darkhast No. 53 of 1977, the same are included in the properties of which execution is sought. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the Additional Commissioner was right in remanding the matter on the ground that the issue regarding the property in respect of which the Court Commissioner is appointed ought to be reconsidered. 14. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the Additional Commissioner was right in remanding the matter on the ground that the issue regarding the property in respect of which the Court Commissioner is appointed ought to be reconsidered. 14. Shri A.B. Kale, learned Counsel for some of the Respondents also adopted the arguments of Shri Mantri and other Counsel to submit that the delay in execution of the decree is only attributable to the petitioners and the petitioners, therefore, cannot take advantage of their own wrong by contending that though a period of almost 50 years has elapsed, the fruits of the said decree have not been enjoyed by them. By referring to the chronology of dates, learned Counsel submits that though the execution was filed in the year 1977, the amendment to include the name of the said Hasan Babu Zarekari was carried out in the year 1998 and thereafter the petitioners filed said Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002 which came to be disposed of in the year 2004. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that it is the petitioners themselves who have delayed the execution of the decree. 15. Shri A.H. Kasliwal, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents Nos.8 to 10, submitted that after passing of preliminary decree for partition, the decree cannot be made effective without there being a final decree. It is his submission that the final decree has to specify the division by metes and bouns and has to be engrossed with requisite stamp paper after which it becomes executable. The learned Counsel submitted that the objections which were raised before the Collector were vital in the context of the final decree that would be drawn upon. The Collector, in his submission, has not dealt with the objections in the proper perspective. 16. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the various parties in the above writ petition. In dealing with the first submission of Shri Hon that the Appeals filed by the Respondents before the Additional Commissioner were not maintainable, the same, in my view, does not have any merit. It is pertinent to note that the decree for partition is being executed under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. It is pertinent to note that the decree for partition is being executed under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In view of the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court cited supra which has been followed by the learned Single Judge wherein this Court has held that against the order passed under section 54 whilst partitioning the properties, an Appeal would lie. In the light of the law laid down by this Court, it would have to be held that the said Appeals filed by the Respondents were maintainable. 17. It is significant to note that this Court whilst disposing of the said Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002 had granted liberty to the parties to raise their contentions before the Collector. The same has been reiterated in the order passed in the Civil Application. In the light of the said orders, it would have to be held that the Respondents were entitled to raise the said contentions before the Collector and the Collector was bound to consider the same. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since this Court had rejected the Intervention Application filed in the said Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002, it was not open for the Respondents to raise objections before the Collector cannot be accepted. It is pertinent to note thatthe decree in the said Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1956 was amended pursuant to the judgment and order passed in First Appeal No. 78 of 1958 and 79 of 1958. It is the said amended decree which is to be executed. The deletion of certain lands from execution on account of the orders passed on Exhibits 14 and 17 filed in the said Darkhast No. 53 of 1977, also, had to be taken into consideration as also the consequences of deletion of the defendants Nos.3 and 4 from the said Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1956. The fact that certain lands have been declared as slum area also was required to be considered by the Collector. In so far as the RespondentNo.3, Hasan Babu Zarekari is concerned, he being the assignee of the share of Mahadu, his share also would have to be considered and the partition to be effected accordingly. The fact that certain lands have been declared as slum area also was required to be considered by the Collector. In so far as the RespondentNo.3, Hasan Babu Zarekari is concerned, he being the assignee of the share of Mahadu, his share also would have to be considered and the partition to be effected accordingly. In view of the mandate of Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the assignee of a decree is entitled to the same conditions as the decree holder and, therefore, the said Hasan Zarekari would be entitled to his share. The contention of Shri Hon that only after the petitioners get their share that said Zarekari, who is an assignee, would be entitled to his share from the petitioners is misfounded. It is on account of the objections raised by the Respondents that the Collector vide his letter dated 21-6-2006 had sought clarification/orders from the executing Court in terms of the issue raised in the said letter. The executing Court on an erroneous premise that it has become functus officio refused to issue order or clarify and referred the proceedings to the Collector. It is well settled that the Civil Court can see if the Collector had acted in accordance with the decretal mandate. Even the Division Bench whilst disposing of Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002 had observed that the Collector to execute the decree by adjusting the equities to the extent they are possible to be adjusted and, therefore, the querries/clarifications sought by the Collector cannot be said to be baseless. 18. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner makes it clear that the Additional Commissioner has remanded the matter back on the grounds mentioned in the said order. The said grounds, in my view, are grounds which were germane whilst carrying out the exercise of the execution of decree in question. It, therefore, cannot be said that the Additional Commissioner had travelled beyond or behind the decree. The order of the Collector does not disclose that the said grounds have been taken into consideration. May be, the Collector was handicapped on account of the fact that the executing Court had refused to clarify or issue orders in respect of the decree which is to be executed. The order of the Collector does not disclose that the said grounds have been taken into consideration. May be, the Collector was handicapped on account of the fact that the executing Court had refused to clarify or issue orders in respect of the decree which is to be executed. In that view of the matter, no fault could be found with the order of remand passed by the Additional Commissioner and consequently, no case for interference by this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is made out and the petition is, therefore, dismissed and Rule discharged with no order as to costs. 19. Since by the impugned order dated 31-5-2007, the Additional Commissioner had directed the Collector to decide the matter afresh within three months and since the period is already over, the Collector is directed to decide the matter expeditiously and not later than 15th December 2007. The parties are directed to appear before the Collector on 12th September 2007 at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter, the Collector to fix the dates as per his convenience.