T. Nandakumar Singh, J. - Heard Mr.H.NK Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Miss Swarnalata, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the private respondents without showing any cause. 2. For this judgment proposing to pass by this Court, it is not required to delve deep into the factual matrix. 3. At the very outset, the Court is com­pelled to observe that in the given case, it appears, procedures prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for filing ex­ecution case for execution of the decree of the Civil Court and writ jurisdiction of the High Court are all mixed up and jumbled up thereby resulting to complete confusion and misunderstanding of the procedure pre­scribed under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for execution of the decree of the Civil Court. The O.S No.34/76/29/77/25 of 1977 of the Court of Subordinate Judge 1, Manipur was finally disposed of vide judgment and de­cree dated 29.11.1979, which read as follows: "This suit coming on the 16th day of No­vember 1979 for final disposal before Shri H.J.Singh, Subordinate Judge-I, Manipur in the presence of Shri R.K. Manisana Singh, Advocate for the plaintiff and Shri T.Bhuban Singh, Advocate for the defendant it is declared that the plaintiff is entitled to one half of the suit land specified in the schedule hereunder an­nexed and that the defendant is entitled to an­other half of the suit land. And it is thereby decreed that a partition be made of the suit land, and it is ordered that a commission do issue directed to a Commissioner to be appointed by the court and named therein to make partition or separate possession of the same according to the right of the parties or persons before declared, and that he do make the same by metes and bounds and award sums to be paid for the purpose of equalizing the shares, where he shall see occasion. And the parties are to be at the liberty to apply to this court from (sic) as they may be advised. Given under my hand and the seal of the court this the 29th day of November, 1979. Sd/- (H.J.Singh) Subordinate Judge No.1, Manipur." 4. It is clear from the record that the plain-tiffofO.S.No.25/1977/decree holder didnot file execution case for execution of the said decree dated 29.11.1979 passed in O.S. No.25/1977. Given under my hand and the seal of the court this the 29th day of November, 1979. Sd/- (H.J.Singh) Subordinate Judge No.1, Manipur." 4. It is clear from the record that the plain-tiffofO.S.No.25/1977/decree holder didnot file execution case for execution of the said decree dated 29.11.1979 passed in O.S. No.25/1977. Mr.H.NK Singh, learned se­nior counsel assisted by Miss Sarnalata has drawn attention of this court to Article 136 of the Limitation Act, and contended that the execution case or application for execution of the said decree dated 29.11.1979 should have been filed within 12 years when the de­cree dated 29.11.1979 becomes enforceable. Therefore, it is his submission that the execu­tion case for execution of the decree dated 29.11.1979 cannot be filed after expiry of 12 years from the date when the decree becomes enforceable. After the application or/execu­tion case for execution of the said decree dated 29.11.1979 had already been barred by limitation, the plaintiff of the said O.S.No.25/1977/decree holder cannot file writ petition being CR No.385 of 1996 for executing the said decree dated 29.11.1979 indirectly. 5. It is the submission of Mr.H.NK Singh learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the C.R.No.3 85 of 1996 for implementation or execution of the said decree dated 29.11.1979, for which application for execu­tion in the manner prescribed for filing execu­tion of the decree under the C.P.C had not been filed, cannot be taken up as a writ peti­tion in order to overcome the prescribed pe­riod for filing the Execution Case under the Limitation Act, 1963. 6. The learned single Judge by passing judgment and order dated 10.02.1998 had disposed of the said C.R.No.385 of 1996 with the following directions: "a) The D.C., Ukhrul with the assistance of the Directorate of Settlement & Land Records, Manipur shall demarcate the boundaries on the ground strictly in terms of the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge on 29.11.79. b) After demarcation on the ground as afore­said the appropriate authority, the D.C, shall make payment to the two parties on the basis of the size of the land as assessed in terms of the demarcation. c) It is made clear that the apportionment of the purchase money between the two parties shall be done strictly in accordance with the demarcation and size of the land and in terms of the particulars of the land assessed. c) It is made clear that the apportionment of the purchase money between the two parties shall be done strictly in accordance with the demarcation and size of the land and in terms of the particulars of the land assessed. d) In the meantime, the Chief Engineer, IFCD shall deposit the amount already sanctioned into any Nationalized Bank so as to accrue some interest for the benefit of the effected persons. The amount shall be deposited in any National­ized Bank within two weeks in the account to be opened by the Chief Engineer under the ap­propriate heading." 7. It is the admitted case of both the par­ties that the suit land of the O.S.No.25 of 1977 which was finally decreed vide the said de­cree dated 29.11.1979 is not the land sur­veyed under Manipur Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act. in other words, the suit land is a part of the hill area of the State of Manipur where the Manipur Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act is not extended and it is not the surveyed land assessed to the payment of rev­enue to the Government. 8. Mr.H.NK Singh, learned senior coun­sel stated that under Section 54 of the CPC, decree for partition of an undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the Government or for the separate possession of a share of such an estate the partition of the estate or the separation of the share shall be made by the Collector or any gazette subordinate of the Collector deputed by him in this behalf. Since the suit land of O.S.No.25 of 1977 is not the surveyed land assessed for payment of revenue, the Deputy Commis­sioner is not the concerned authority for par­tition of the suit land of O.S.No.25 of 1977 under Section 54 of the CPC. Under Section 75 of the CPC, the court i.e. the Executing Court, subject to such conditions and limita­tions, as may be prescribed, may issue a com­mission to make partition of the suit land as per the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1979 passed in O.S.No.25 of 1977. 9. Under Section 75 of the CPC, the court i.e. the Executing Court, subject to such conditions and limita­tions, as may be prescribed, may issue a com­mission to make partition of the suit land as per the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1979 passed in O.S.No.25 of 1977. 9. In the instant case, according to the learned senior counsel, the proper course to be pursued by the plaintiff in O.S.No.25 of 1977/decree holder was to file application for execution of the decree dated 29.11.1979 and in that case the Executing Court can issue commission for partition of the suit land of O.S.No.25 of 1977 as per the said judgment and decree dated 29.11.1979. The proce­dure prescribed for execution of the decree provided under CPC is not followed by the plaintiff of O.S.No.25 of 1977/decree holder for executing the decree dated 29.11.1979. As stated above, by completely bypassing the procedure prescribed in the CPC the plain­tiff/decree holder filed C.R.No.3 85 of 1996 long after expiry of the limitation period for filing application or/execution of the said de­cree dated 29.11.1979. 10. Writ Appeal and Cross Appeal No. 170 of 1998 filed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 10.02.1998 passed in C.R.No.385 of 1996 had been finally disposed of by the learned Division Bench of this Court by passing judg­ment and order dated 12.06.2002 by affirm­ing the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 10.02.1998 passed in C.R.No.385 of 1996. The State respondents filed Misc Application being Civil Misc Appln No. 1 of 2004 for modifying the final judg­ment of the learned single Judge dated 10.02.1998 passed in C.R.No.385 of 1996 and judgment and order of the learned Divi­sion Bench dated 12.06.2002 passed in Misc ApplnNo.408 of 2002 (Ref: Cross Appeal No. 170/98). The Division Bench had allowed the Civil Misc Appln No. 1 of 2006 by slightly modifying the order of the learned single Judge dated 10.02.1998 passed in C.R.No.385 of 1996 and the judgment and order of the Di­vision Bench dated 11.06.2002 to the extent that"... The Division Bench had allowed the Civil Misc Appln No. 1 of 2006 by slightly modifying the order of the learned single Judge dated 10.02.1998 passed in C.R.No.385 of 1996 and the judgment and order of the Di­vision Bench dated 11.06.2002 to the extent that"... the authorities of the State should now be permitted to proceed to demarcate the areas which are likely to be covered by the execution of the project and in the course of such demarcation, if any land belonging to the respondents and covered by the earlier order of this Court dated 10.2.1998 is likely to be affected, compensation for such land shall be deposited in a nationalized Bank in accordance with clause (d) of the directions contained in the order dated 10.2.98. Such amount as may be deposited in the Bank on account of compensation payable to the respondents will abide by such further orders that may be passed after partition of the suit property decreed in their favour" vide judg­ment and order of the Division Bench dated 22.04.2004. 11. It is the submission of Mr.H.NK Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that as per the final judgment and order of the learned Division Bench dated 22.04.2004 passed in Civil Misc Appln. No. 1 of 2004, which modified the order of the learned single Judge dated 10.02.1998 passed in C.R.No.385 of 1996 and judgment and order of the learned Division Bench dated 12.06.2002, directions to be carried out by the D.C., Ukhrul are very limited and circum­scribed inasmuch as the learned D.C., has to identify and demarcate the areas which are likely to be covered by the execution of the project and in the course of such demarca­tion, if any land belonging to the respondents and covered by the earlier order of this Court dated 10.02.1998 is likely to be affected, compensation for such land shall be depos­ited in a nationalized bank. Therefore, in other words, it is the submission of Mr.H.NK Singh learned senior counsel that as per the last or­der of the Division Bench dated 22.04.2004 passed in Civil Misc Appln No.1 of 2004 (Ref: Cross Writ Appeal No. 170 of 1998) the D.C., Ukhrul is not supposed to execute the said decree dated 16.11.1979 passed in O.S.No.25 of 1977 by making partition of the suit land of O.S. No.25 of 1977. But the plaintiff of the O.S.No.25 of 1977/decree holder filed Judl Misc Case No.83 of 1998 with reference to O.S.No.25 of 1977 in the court of Civil Judge, Sr.Divn-II, Manipur East for a direction to the D.C., Ukhrul for de­marcating the suit land of the O.S.No.25 of 1977 as per the order dated 12.02.1998 of this Court passed in C.R.No.385 of 1996 in terms of the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1979. 12. It is the submission of Mr. H.NK Singh, learned senior counsel that Judl Misc Case No.83 of 1998, with reference to O.S.No.25 of 1977 which had already been disposed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn-H) Manipur East without even filing an application for ex­ecution of the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1979 is unknown under the CPC and abuse of the execution proceeding for execu­tion of decree of the Civil Court. For execut­ing the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1979 passed in O.S.No.25 of 1977 in absence of execution proceedings, Civil Misc Appln No.83 of 1993 had been filed with reference to O.S.No.25 of 1977 which is no more pending and finally disposed of. The present petitioner approached the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn-II) Manipur East by filing Judl Misc Case No.206 of 2005 for reviewing order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn) dated 30.08.2004 passed in Judl Misc Case No.83 of 1998 for the reasons that the learned D.C., has not to make partition of the suit land of O.S.No.25/.1977 as per order dated 10.02.1998 of the Gauhati High Court passed in C.R.No.385 of 1996 in terms of decree dated 29.11.1979 as the order of learned single Judge dated 10.02.1998 passed in C.R.No.85 of 1995 had been already modi­fied vide judgment and order of the learned Divison Bench dated 22.04.2004 passed in Civil Misc Appln No.l of 2004. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn-II) Manipur East by the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2005 had rejected the Judl Misc Case No.206 of 2005 filed by the present peti­tioner. Hence the present writ petition chal­lenging the order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn-II) Manipur East dated 23.09.2005 passed in Judl Misc Case No.206 of 2005 and order dated 30.08.2004 passed in Judl Misc Case No.80 of 1995. 13. Hence the present writ petition chal­lenging the order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn-II) Manipur East dated 23.09.2005 passed in Judl Misc Case No.206 of 2005 and order dated 30.08.2004 passed in Judl Misc Case No.80 of 1995. 13. From the above factual backdrop, it appears that the plaintiff of O.S.No.25 of 1977/decree holder had made an attempt for execution of judgment and decree dated 29.11.1979 after the application or/execution case for execution of judgment and decree dated 29.11.1979 had been hopelessly barred by limitation, by filing C.R.No.385 of 1996. It is well settled law that the Constitutional authority cannot do indirectly what is not per­mitted to do directly. If there is a constitu­tional provision inhibiting the constitutional authority from doing an act, such provision cannot be allowed to be defeated by adop­tion of any subterfuge. That would be clearly a fraud on the Constitutional provisions (Ref: Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors Vs State of Bihar & Ors : AIR SC 579). It is also fairly well settled that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. It is all the more necessary to observe this rule where power is of a drastic nature and its exercise in a mode other than the one provided will be violative of the fundamental principles of natural jus­tice. (Ref: Hukam Chand Shyam lal Vs. Union of India & Ors. : AIR 1976 SC 789 (C.B.). The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court again in S.G. Jaisinghani Vs. Union of India & Ors. : AIR 1967 SC 1421 held that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole judicial system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when con­ferred upon executive authorities, must be continued within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that de­cisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules. 14. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when con­ferred upon executive authorities, must be continued within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that de­cisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules. 14. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of considered view that the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn-II) Manipur East should not have entertained the Judl Misc Case No.83 of 1998 with reference to O.S.No.25/ 1977 which had already been disposed offor the purpose of executing the decree dated 29.11.1979 passed in O.S.No.25 of 1977 in absence of execution case or application for executing the decree dated 29.11.1979. Ap­plication before the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn-II), for implementing the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 10.02.1998 passed in C.R.No.385 of 1996, in the given case, is not the appropriate fo­rum. As the order of the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 22.04.2004 passed in C.Misc Apln No.1 of 2004 (Ref: Cross Writ Appeal No. 170 of 1998 and Misc Appln No.408 of 2002) had modified the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 10.02.1998 passed in C.R.No.385 of 1996, Judgment and order of the Divisin Bench dated 11.06.2002 the D.C., Ukhrul is not supposed to make partition of the suit land as per judg­ment and decree dated 29.11.1979 passed in O.S.No.25 of 1977; and what were to be carried out by the D.C., Ukhrul, as per judg­ment and order of the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 22.04.2004 passed in C.Misc Appl No. 1 of 2004 (Ref: Cross Writ Appeal No. 170 of 1998 and Misc Appln No.408 of 2002) were to demarcate the area which are likely to be covered by the execu­tion of the project and in the course of such demarcation, if any land belonging to the re­spondents and covered by the earlier order of this Court dated 10.02.1998 (judgment of learned single Judge) is likely to be affected compensation for such land shall be depos­ited in a nationalized bank in accordance with clause (d) of the directions contained in the order dated 10.2.1998. In other words, the D.C., Ukhrul is not supposed to partition the suit land strictly in terms of the decree dated 29.11.1979 passed in O.S. No.25 of 1977. 15. In other words, the D.C., Ukhrul is not supposed to partition the suit land strictly in terms of the decree dated 29.11.1979 passed in O.S. No.25 of 1977. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the im­pugned order dated 30.08.2004 passed in Judl.Misc Case No.83 of 1998 (Ref: O.S.No.25/1977 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn-II) Manipur East and order dated 23.09.2005 passed in Judl Misc Case No.206 of 2005 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn-II) Manipur East are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed.