JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2. None appears for the other respondents although service on them is complete. 2. The petitioner in this application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the judgment debtor in T. Ex. Case No. 15/2002, which was filed by Arabinda Kar (since deceased) to execute an ex-parte decree dated 26.03.2002, passed by the learned civil Judge, Nagaon in T.S. No. 51/2000. The order impugned herein is the order dated 01.03.2014, passed in the said execution case, on an application filed under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present respondents herein are the legal representatives of the original sole respondent i.e. Arabinda Kar. 3. Without referring to the case of the respondents herein in the suit, it would be sufficient to mention herein that the predecessor-in- interest of the substituted respondents had obtained an ex-parte decree as stated herein before. After the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners came to know about the passing of the said ex-parte decree for his eviction from the suit premises, he by unsuccessfully filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which was dismissed. No appeal was preferred and hence, the ex-parte decree dated 26.03.2002 passed in T.S. No. 51/2000 has attained finality. 4. At the execution stage, the predecessor-in- interest of the present respondents herein had filed an objection against execution under section 47 CPC, claiming that the decree was in-executable as the land covered by the decree was not identifiable. The said application was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 26/2012. The learned Civil Judge, Nagaon, by an order dated 26.11.2012, inter-alia, held that (i) the suit land is identifiable, (ii) no ambiguity was seen in the decree, and (iii) the decree is to be executed if it is executable. 5. The said order was challenged before this Court by filing CRP No. 566/12, wherein this court by an order dated 19.03.2013 passed the following direction (operative part) – “Considering the matter in its entirety, I dispose of this application with a direction to the learned trial court to examine as to whether the decree passed in T.S. No. 51/2000 is executable or not and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with the law. Accordingly, in terms of the above, the matter is remitted to the trial court for doing the needful as directed. With the above observation and direction, this revision petition is disposed of.” 6. The learned executing court, by its order dated 28.06.2013 once again held that the decree was executable. However, when the Civil Nazir visited the suit land with Lat Mandal and Police, he could not identify the suit land and the Warrant of Execution was returned. The said report, as annexed to the revision application is extracted herein below:- “Freehand English Translation from Assamese” “May it please you Honor: With due respect, it is hereby stated that in order to perform the work of T.Ex. No. 15/02 on 20.07.13 along with lat mandal and police the undersigned were present in the suit land and asked the lat-mandal to identify the suit land. But the lat-mandal, after verifying the records, informed me that the land mentioned in the schedule of the suit the land covered by patta No. 169 (old) of Sonai Bali Kisamat of Rangagara Kisamat as previously A.P. Patta No. 15, Dag No. 860 (New) and there is nothing in his record about the land covered by A.P. Patta No. 15. As the patta no. is not correct as per record and there is no resemblance therewith so the suit land could not be identified and hence this report has been submitted. Since the suit land could not be identified, so the task of the warrant of execution could not be done. For necessary action this report has been submitted. Along with this report, report of Lat-Mandal is also enclosed herewith. The warrant of execution is hereby returned along with the report. This is my humble prayer. Truly yours, Sri Kusha Kanta Kalita Civil Nazir, Nagaon, Assam. 20/07/13.” 7. The report of the Mandal, who had accompanied the Civil Nazir on 20.07.2013 to the site of suit land is also reproduced below:- “Freehand English Translation from Assamese” “May it please you Honor: Today, on 20.07.2013 as per the order of the Circle Officer of Samaguri revenue circle we came to the suit land situated at Sonari Bali Village of Rangagara Mouza covered by Dag No. 860 in order to identify the same. On being present in the suit land it is seen that as per the order of your honor that the Patta No. 163 (old) A.P. No. 15, dag no. 860 (New) should be new patta no. 163, dag no. 860(New) as per the available record. The annual patta no. 15 is not available in the record at hand. As the land mentioned in the schedule is not found and available in the record at hand so the suit land could not be identified. It is therefore humbly prayed for necessary order from the end of your honor. Truly yours, Sri Atul Ch. Bora (Mandal) 20/07/13.” 8. In the meanwhile, the petitioners herein had again approached this Court by filing CRP No. 248/13, wherein this court by an order dated 29.07.2013 had passed the following direction (operative portion) – “Having regard to the aforesaid position and also the fact that the petitioners neither contested the suit nor filed any document in support of the application filed under section 47 CPC, the Court below has rightly passed the order dated 28th June, 2013, which does not require any interference. The executing Court, however, shall execute the decree, as passed by the Civil Court and in no circumstances the said decree can be executed in respect of the land, which was not the decreetal land. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.” 9. The learned Civil Judge, Nagaon, by an order dated 01.03.2014, held that the decreetal land is identifiable and therefore, found that the decree is executable. It was further observed that the decree will be executed as per the decree. The said order is in challenge. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the Civil Nazir and the Lat Mandal have already expressed that the decreetal land is not identifiable, by no stretch of imagination the learned executing court could have taken a contradictory view to the effect that the decree is executable. 11. Per contra, Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that land under AP-15 i.e. land of Annual Patta No.15, which was a Govt. 11. Per contra, Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that land under AP-15 i.e. land of Annual Patta No.15, which was a Govt. land, was converted into a Periodic Patta land, covered by PP No. 165 and therefore, reference to the old annual patta in the Schedule of the suit land, which is mentioned as “P.P. 163 old A.P. 15” is a mere mention of the current patta number and the old patta number of the suit land. He submits that the mentioning of old Annual Patta No. is a mere reference to the antiquity and/or history of the suit land and nothing more. It is submitted that by holding the current jamabandi, the description of earlier settlement numbers of land would never be found there, as sought to be projected by the report of the Lat Mandal and the Civil Nazir, for which the approach and/or projection as made by the said persons was erroneous. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that as per the decree, the ‘A’ Schedule land is the total land measuring 3 Katha 5 Lechas, out of which ‘B’ Schedule land is measuring 2 Katha 5 Lechas, over which the possession of the respondents is confirmed and the execution is to proceed in respect of only the remaining 1 katha land described in ‘C’ Schedule land. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned executing Court as it has correctly held that the decreetal land described in ‘C’ Schedule is identifiable. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and upon perusal of the materials available on the record, this court is of the view that as the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon has already taken note of the order dated 29.07.2013, passed by this Court in CRP 248/2013 and the learned court has also recorded in the impugned order dated 01.03.2014 that the decree shall be executed as per the decree. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that there are no grounds for the petitioners to object to the execution at this stage because in so far as the decree is concerned, the same has attained finality. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that there are no grounds for the petitioners to object to the execution at this stage because in so far as the decree is concerned, the same has attained finality. Therefore, if the decree is executed in excess of the decree, the present substituted petitioners shall surely have a right to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to ventilate their genuine grievance. 13. Whether the decree is executable or not is a matter which is required to be decided by the executing court and not by this revisional court, which cannot foray into the sphere of scrutiny of executablity of the decree. This court is of the opinion that when the decree is for recovery of immovable property, the decree is liable to be drawn as per the provisions of Order XX Rule 9 CPC. If on the basis of the decree so drawn up, the learned executing court is satisfied that the decree can be executed, it would not be open for this court exercising superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to substitute its opinion on and/or over the view expressed by the learned executing court, which in this particular case in hand has held that the decree is executable. 14. This court does not find any material to show that the learned executing court would execute the decree beyond the scope of the decree. Similarly, it is premature to arrive at a conclusion that the learned executing court would execute the decree on land not covered by the decree or if the decree is found to be in-executable. It is needless to mention that as per the impugned order, it appears that the learned court below is mindful of the order dated 29.07.2013 passed by this Court in CRP No. 248/13. 15. Therefore, this revision is found devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.