JUDGEMENT AND ORDER By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 09.05.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, in Misc.(J) Case No. 20/13, arising out of Title Execution Case No. 7/12, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC, read with Section 47 and Section 151 of the CPC was rejected with cost of Rs. 3,000/-. 2. I have heard Mr. B. R. Dey, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. S. S. Sharma, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondent/decree-holder. 3. By an order dated 28.05.2014, passed by this Court, notice on the proforma respondent (the proforma respondent being the wife of the petitioner) was dispensed with. 4. The wife of the petitioner, i.e., the proforma respondent, as plaintiff, had filed a Title Suit, being TS No. 15/2007, against the present respondent, as defendant, with the prayers (i) to pass a decree with a declaration that the plaintiff had already acquired a good and fair adverse possessory right and interest over the suit land, (ii) to pass a decree with a declaration that the defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit land due to acquiring of adverse possessory right and interest by the plaintiff over the suit land, and (iii) to pass a permanent injunction against the defendant, his men, agents, etc. by restraining them not to make any further attempt, or to try, to enter and acquire the suit land and also not to create any disturbance towards the peaceful and khas possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land, (iv) cost of the suit, and (v) any other relief to which the plaintiff was entitled to. 5. Schedule - ‘A’ to the plaint was a piece of land, which measures 12½ Lecha covered by Patta No. 518, Dag No. 762, Khatian No. 266, situated at Bongaigaon town. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is the lawful owner and possessor of Schedule –‘A’ land. The boundary of Schedule-‘A’ land was described as follows: North : Drain and road South : Aruna Bala Gore East : Defendant’s land, i.e., western portion of the suit land. West : Road 6. The suit land was specifically described in Scheduled-‘B’ to the plaint. The boundary of Schedule-‘A’ land was described as follows: North : Drain and road South : Aruna Bala Gore East : Defendant’s land, i.e., western portion of the suit land. West : Road 6. The suit land was specifically described in Scheduled-‘B’ to the plaint. The same is also a plot of land measuring 12½ Lecha, covered by Patta No. 518, Dag No. 762, Khatian No. 266, at Bongaigaon town. The boundary of the said plot of land was described as follows: North : Drain and road South : Aruna Bala Gore East : Sujit Das West : Lina Das (Plaintiff’s land) 7. The case of the plaintiff, briefly stated, is that she had entered into possession of the Schedule-‘B’ land in the year 1990 and had continued to possess the same, uninterruptedly, to the knowledge of the defendant and, in the process, acquired title to the land by way of adverse possession. Though the suit land was purchased by the defendant from one Sri Jayanta Haldar, in the year 1989, vide registered Sale Deed No. 1073, the defendant did not get physical possession of the suit land, and his vendor, namely, Jayanta Haldar, who was arrayed as proforma defendant in the suit, had also not got delivery of possession of the land from his vendor, namely, Narayan Chandra Roy. It is pleaded that Schedule-‘A’ and Schedule-‘B’ land are attached to each other. On 25.03.2007, the defendant, accompanied by some persons, sought to enter and occupy the suit land, but such attempt was thwarted. In view of the apprehensions generated that the defendant may dispossess her, the suit was filed praying for reliefs, which are already noted above. 8. The defendant submitted written statement as well as counter-claim valued at Rs. 1,80,000/-. The defendant pleaded that after purchase of the suit land, meaning thereby the Schedule-‘B’ land, he had taken delivery of possession and, in the Sale Deed, by which he purchased the suit land, the husband of the plaintiff was one of the witnesses. His vendor, Jayanta Haldar, had purchased the suit land from one Narayan Chandra Roy vide registered Sale Deed No. 961, dated 08.10.1987, and, in the said Sale Deed also the husband of the plaintiff was one of the witnesses. His vendor, Jayanta Haldar, had purchased the suit land from one Narayan Chandra Roy vide registered Sale Deed No. 961, dated 08.10.1987, and, in the said Sale Deed also the husband of the plaintiff was one of the witnesses. On 25.03.2007, on a routine visit to the suit land, the defendant found that the plaintiff and her husband had erected some structures over his plot of land and had kept some cattle. On being confronted, it was told by the plaintiff and her husband that they were constructing a cowshed over their own plot of land and they would shift the structures, along with the cattle, to their own plot of land, once the construction was over, and requested the defendant to allow them to use the land for some months. Being a neighbour, the defendant allowed the plaintiff to use the suit land. However, subsequently, further constructions were raised by the plaintiff and her husband and they continued to raise illegal structures despite protests and, accordingly, the written statement along with the counter-claim was filed. In the counter-claim, the defendant prayed for, amongst others, declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and for recovery of possession by evicting the plaintiff from the suit land. 9. The Schedule of the land, given by the defendant, over which he prayed for his right, title and interest, is same with the suit land described by the plaintiff in Schedule-‘B’. The name of Aruna Bala Gore, as described by the plaintiff, was, however, written as Aruna Bala Gour. 10. The learned trial Court, after considering the materials on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by judgment and order dated 07.04.2010, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish her claim of possession over the suit land and allowed the counter-claim holding that the defendant successfully proved his right, title and interest over the suit land and was entitled to a decree of Khas possession. 11. The plaintiff preferred an appeal in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2010, which was registered as Title Appeal No. 27/2010, but the appeal also came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 02.04.2012. 12. The defendant filed Execution Case, being Title Execution Case No. 7/12, before the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon, for execution of the decree passed in counter-claim. 12. The defendant filed Execution Case, being Title Execution Case No. 7/12, before the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon, for execution of the decree passed in counter-claim. The Executing Court passed an order for execution of the decree, by appointing the Circle Officer to assist the Bailiff of the Court to execute the decree in presence of police. However, the Circle Officer submitted a report, dated 29.11.2012, stating that the decree could not be executed because dissimilarity of boundary was observed at the western side inasmuch as, on the western side, there was land of one Sri Hare Ram Das and not of Lina Das (i.e., plaintiff of TS No. 15/07). 13. After hearing the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor and upon going through the documents exhibited by the Circle Officer, who was cross-examined, the learned Executing Court passed an order, on 21.06.2013, wherein the Executing Court observed that the boundaries of three sides, i.e., North, East and South are clear and the decreetal land can be ascertained from these three boundaries and, accordingly, directed the Circle Officer to measure the land and to give possession of the decreetal land to the decree-holder, fixing 06.07.2013 for report. 14. After the aforesaid order was passed on 21.06.2013, the husband of the plaintiff, who is the petitioner in this petition, filed a petition, on 05.07.2013, under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, read with Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC, praying for dismissing the execution proceeding, contending that the decree had been obtained through fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of facts. The said petition was registered as Misc.(J) Case No. 20/13. The decree-holder had also filed an objection to the said Misc. (J) Case. By the order impugned, the learned Executing Court rejected the said petition with cost of Rs. 3,000/-. 15. Mr. B. R. Dey, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner came to learn about the judgment and decree, dated 07.04.2010, from the Lat Mandal, on 31.05.2013, when he went to deposit the land revenue and, accordingly, collected all the necessary papers and filed the said petition. The petitioner had purchased 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land on 07.12.1990 vide registered Sale Deed No. 1371, dated 07.12.1990, and he was delivered possession of the land by Giribala Roy. The petitioner had purchased 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land on 07.12.1990 vide registered Sale Deed No. 1371, dated 07.12.1990, and he was delivered possession of the land by Giribala Roy. Giribala Roy was gifted 2 Katha 14 Lecha of land, under Dag No. 762, by her father, Bistu Ram Kurmi, vide Gift Deed No. 4469, dated 30.08.1975, and her name was recorded in respect of 2 Katha 10 Lecha of land out of 2 Katha 14 Lecha of land. Giribala Roy did not execute any power of attorney and she had not transferred or alienated the suit land prior to sale of the land to the petitioner. The petitioner’s name was also recorded in the records of rights on 04.04.1991 and Periodic Patta No. 1144 was issued in the name of the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the decreetal suit land, measuring 12.5 Lecha falls within his purchased land measuring 1 Katha 5 Lecha. 16. Mr. Dey, learned Senior counsel submits that the learned Executing Court did not appreciate the object, import and purport of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in the correct perspective and, although substantial right of the petitioner was involved, rejected the said petition primarily guided by the consideration that there was an attempt to delay the execution of the decree. The learned Senior counsel also refers to a judgment in the case of State of Assam v. Sifat Ali and Others, reported in AIR 1967 Assam and Nagaland 3. 17. Mr. S. S. Sharma, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petition filed by the petitioner projected a case feigning ignorance of the filing of the suit by his wife, though they live together and that is hard to believe. It is also difficult to accept that the developments, beginning from the filing of the suit to the execution of the case, came to be known to him only through a Lat Mandal. 18. It is also submitted by Mr. Sharma that out of two contiguous plots of land, each measuring 12 ½ Lecha, the western plot, measuring 12½ Lecha, is owned by Smt. Lina Das, i.e., the plaintiff, and the eastern plot is owned by the defendant/decree-holder. 18. It is also submitted by Mr. Sharma that out of two contiguous plots of land, each measuring 12 ½ Lecha, the western plot, measuring 12½ Lecha, is owned by Smt. Lina Das, i.e., the plaintiff, and the eastern plot is owned by the defendant/decree-holder. Lina Das had purchased 12 ½ Lecha of land, vide registered Sale Deed No. 960, dated 08.10.1987, and the Sale Deed was executed by Narayan Chandra Roy, husband-cum-power of attorney holder of Giribala Roy. The land on the eastern side was described to be that of Jayanta Haldar, who also purchased the land, measuring 12½ Lecha, vide registered Sale Deed No. 961, dated 08.10.1987, on being executed by the Narayan Chandra Roy. In the said Sale Deed No. 961, dated 08.10.1987, the petitioner was one of the witnesses. In the Sale Deed No. 1073, dated 27.10.1989, by which the defendant had purchased the land from Jayanta Haldar, the petitioner Hare Ram Das was one of the witnesses. After the sales were effected, in respect of the plaintiff for 12 ½ Lecha of land, and to the defendant measuring 12 ½ Lecha of land, Giribala Roy had no saleable interest. It is further submitted by Mr. Sharma that, in the interregnum, the Second Appeal, being RSA 160/2012, filed by the wife of the petitioner was also dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 31.03.2014. He submits that the learned Executing Court had rightly passed the order and no interference by this Court is called for. 19. In the petition filed before the Executing Court, the pleaded case of the petitioner is that out of 2 Katha 14 Lecha of land in Dag No. 762, gifted to Giribala Roy, her name was recorded in respect of land measuring 2 Katha 10 Lecha. He claims to have purchased 1 Katha 5 Lecha, out of 2 Katha 10 Lecha of land, on 07.12.1990. It is also admitted by him that, in the year 1986, Sujit Kumar Das and Bela Rani Das (i.e., wife of Sujit Kumar Das), in the contiguous east, had purchased land measuring 1 Katha 5 Lecha. While he traces the history of sale and purchase of land by others belonging to Giribala Roy, he does not say a word with regard to Sale Deed No. 960 of 1987, by which his wife had purchased 12 ½ Lecha of land, in Dag No. 762. While he traces the history of sale and purchase of land by others belonging to Giribala Roy, he does not say a word with regard to Sale Deed No. 960 of 1987, by which his wife had purchased 12 ½ Lecha of land, in Dag No. 762. Schedule-‘A’ and Schedule-‘B’ of Title Suit No. 15/07, measuring 12 ½ Lecha each, together comprise 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land. While stating that the suit land, measuring 12 ½ Lecha, which, in other words, is the Schedule-‘B’ land of Title Suit No. 15/07 and also the land described in the counter-claim, is within the purchased land of 1 Katha 15 Lecha, he is conspicuously silent with regard to Schedule-‘A’ land of Title Suit No. 15/07. On his own admission, there is no dispute with regard to the land measuring 1 Katha 15 Lecha, belonging to Sujit Kumar Das and Bela Rani Das, which is to the east of the 12 ½ Lecha of land in Schedule-‘B’ of Tile Suit No. 15/07, which is same as the land claimed in the counter-claim. So, on his own pleading, 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land would necessarily have to include the Schedule-A’ land of Title Suit No. 15/07 filed by his wife. The petitioner could not have avoided and skirted the issue by remaining silent on the suit filed by his wife, especially, when he has prayed for dismissal of the Execution proceeding arising out of decree passed in a counter-claim lodged by the defendant in a suit filed by the wife of the petitioner. 20. The High Court, in the Second Appeal also, had affirmed the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below and had negated the plea of adverse possession raised by the wife of the petitioner. 21. The petitioner stated that Giribala Roy did not execute any power of attorney in favour of her husband. The plaintiff of Title Suit No. 15/07, i.e., his wife, purchased the plot of land, measuring 12½ Lecha, on the strength of Sale Deed executed by the power of attorney holder. In the objection filed by the defendant to the petition filed by the petitioner, it was categorically stated that the petitioner himself was a witness in the Sale Deed executed by Narayan Chandra Roy, husband of Giribala Roy, by which 12½ Lecha of land had been sold to Jayanta Haldar. In the objection filed by the defendant to the petition filed by the petitioner, it was categorically stated that the petitioner himself was a witness in the Sale Deed executed by Narayan Chandra Roy, husband of Giribala Roy, by which 12½ Lecha of land had been sold to Jayanta Haldar. It was also stated that he was also a witness to the Sale Deed executed by Jayanta Haldar in favour of the defendant. 22. In the petition filed before this Court, there is no averment that the statements made by the decree-holder in the objection petition, regarding his being witness to the Sale Deeds in question, are devoid of any truth and based on utter falsehood. 23. The land, allegedly purchased by the petitioner, according to him, is bounded in the North by – drain, South by – Aruna Bala Gour, West by – Road, and East by – Giribala Roy. Giribala Roy, as per own admission of the petitioner, had sold out 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land, out of 2 Katha 10 Lecha, to Sujit Kumar Das and Bela Rani Das on the eastern side. Thus, apparently, Giribala Roy did not have any land on the eastern side. 24. The judgment relied on by the petitioner deals with the question of power of the Commissioner, under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, and this Court had held that power of Commissioner is administrative and, in absence of violation of rules, does not give him the jurisdiction to cancel periodic Patta issued in pursuance of an order of settlement. The decision cited has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. 25. A decree, lawfully obtained, must be taken to its logical end. The plea taken by the petitioner, that the decree was obtained through fraud and by concealment of facts and misrepresentation, is totally unfounded. At the cost of repetition, it was the petitioner’s wife, who had instituted the suit in the first place, and the decree came to be passed on the counter-claim filed by the defendant. In the application before the learned Executing Court, as also before this Court, the petitioner does not advert to the suit filed by his wife, though his claim in the petition also includes the Schedule-“A” land. In the application before the learned Executing Court, as also before this Court, the petitioner does not advert to the suit filed by his wife, though his claim in the petition also includes the Schedule-“A” land. In the suit filed by his wife, his wife had claimed right, title and interest in Schedule-‘A’ land, and right of adverse possession in the Schedule-‘B’ land, while acknowledging the defendant to be the owner of Schedule-‘B’ land. 26. In view of the discussions above, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this application and, accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No cost.