ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed an application in the Court of Munsif, Jamshedpur for amendment of the original Execution Case No. 52 of 1999 filed on 29.07.1999 praying that the relief prayed in Column no. 10 of the original execution petition may be deleted and in its place, the following sentences may be inserted: “As per decree and judgment of the 1st Appellate Court, the Nazir of the court may kindly be directed to compel the judgment-debtors to hand over a duplicate key of the iron gate illegally constructed by them on the extreme northern portion of the south alley to the D.Hrs. and the Nazir be also directed to compel the judgment-debtors to demolish the pucca stair-case illegally constructed by the judgment-debtors in the suit-alley in between the respective houses of the D.Hrs. and J.Drs. with Police help and if the J.Drs. are not willing to do, the D.Hrs. be allowed to demolish the same with his own mason and labourers in their presence and the cost of which shall be realized by the D.Hrs. later on from the J.Drs. on furnishing account of the same.” 3. Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners submits that so far as the first part of the amendment sought by the plaintiff-respondents, there is no infirmity in the same. However, so far as the second part is concerned, which reads as “………Nazir be also directed to compel the judgment-debtor to demolish the pucca stair case illegally constructed by the judgment-debtors in the suit alley in between the respective houses of the D.Hrs. and J.Drs. with Police help and if the J.Drs. are not willing to do, the D.Hr.s be allowed to demolish the same with his own mason and labourers in their presence and the cost of which shall be realized by the D.Hrs. later on from the J.Drs. on furnishing account of the same.”, is contrary to the judgment dated 22.06.2005 passed in Title Appeal no. 31 of 1999 and 33 of 1999 by the 1st Additional District Judge- East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. 4. Mr. P.C. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents, fairly submits that so far as the judgment rendered by the learned trial court is concerned, the prayer made by the petitioners in the suit to that extent has itself been found to be time barred and thus, the same was not allowed. 4. Mr. P.C. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents, fairly submits that so far as the judgment rendered by the learned trial court is concerned, the prayer made by the petitioners in the suit to that extent has itself been found to be time barred and thus, the same was not allowed. However, he submits that the amendment sought by the respondents by way of amendment application to the extent of handing over of a duplicate key of the iron gate by the defendants-petitioners to the plaintiffs-respondents is in accordance with the direction given by the 1st Additional District Judge- East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal no. 31 of 1999 and 33 of 1999. 5. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant documents placed on record, I find that the 1st Additional District Judge-East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide judgment dated 22.06.2005 passed in Title Appeal no. 31 of 1999 and 33 of 1999, while allowing the Title Appeal no. 31 of 1999 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents, has directed that the defendants (the petitioners herein) will allow the plaintiffs (the respondents herein) to use the iron gate by providing key and lock. Therefore, the amendment prayed by the respondents to the extent of handing over of the duplicate key of the iron gate by the defendants appears to be proper and justified. 6. However, so far as that part of the amendment sought by the respondents seeking direction to compel the judgment-debtors to demolish the pucca stair case constructed in the suit alley between the respective houses of the petitioners and the respondents, does not appear to be in terms with the order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge- East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. Further, on perusal of the judgment dated 19.03.1999 passed by the learned Munsif, Jamshepur in T.S. No. 157 of 1991, it appears that the said relief prayed by the respondents in the suit was itself found to be timed barred and thus, the said relief was not allowed to the respondents. In Title Appeal no. 31 of 1999 and 33 of 1999 also, the 1st Additional District Judge- East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur has not given any direction for removal of the stair case. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.01.2007 passed in Execution Case no. In Title Appeal no. 31 of 1999 and 33 of 1999 also, the 1st Additional District Judge- East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur has not given any direction for removal of the stair case. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.01.2007 passed in Execution Case no. 52 of 1999 allowing the amendment sought by the plaintiffs/respondents to the extent of seeking direction to compel the judgment-debtors to demolish the pucca stair constructed by the defendants-petitioners in the suit alley between their respective houses, is set aside. 8. The writ petition is partly allowed in terms with the aforesaid observations.