JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The challenge in this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are the orders dated 17.08.2016 and 19.08.2016 passed by the learned Court of Munsiff No.1, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Executing Court”) in Title Execution Case No. 27/2011. 3. The petitioners herein are the judgment debtors in the said Title Execution Case No. 27/2011 and the respondents herein are the decree holders therein. The petitioners herein by filing petition under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bearing petition No. 3217 dated 17.08.2016 before the learned Executing Court, stated that the writ for possession was not prepared as per the decree as the decree holders are not required to enter upon the land of the judgment debtors while taking possession of the Schedule-D property and, as such, prayed for recalling the said writ. The said petition was rejected by learned Executing Court by order dated 17.08.2016, inter-alia, on the ground that (i) the petitioners herein had not specifically mentioned which was their property and as by the earlier order dated 29.07.2015 it is mentioned that in Clause No. 4 of the Partition Deed (Ext.1), it is specifically mentioned that the common galli (Hindi equivalent to the word “passage”) measuring 4 feet wide in between the land of both the parties shall be used as a common passage by all parties including the Pujaris’ families of Shri. Govindeoji Mandir, hence, the question of entrance upon the land of the judgment debtor does not arise, (ii) there is no proof that the decree is going to be executed by entering upon the land of the judgment debtors, (iii) an Executing Court is to execute the decree as it is and the court cannot recall the writ by invoking section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, (iv) the judgment debtor ought to have raised the issue at the trial stage and this plea cannot be entertained at the execution proceeding. By the other order dated 19.08.2016, the learned Executing Court had directed issuance of writ lying with the case record. 4. In order to explain his stand, Mr. By the other order dated 19.08.2016, the learned Executing Court had directed issuance of writ lying with the case record. 4. In order to explain his stand, Mr. O.P. Bhati, the learned counsel for the petitioners has meticulously taken this court to the materials on record, specifically through his objection filed under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code and order dated 27.05.2015 passed thereon. By referring to the said order dated 27.05.2015, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Executing Court had ordered that the respondents herein i.e. the decree holders could take possession of the Schedule-D property by using the common galli (passage) mentioned in Ext.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner then proceeded to argue that there was no ‘galli’ (passage) between the area marked as Schedule “Ga” and Schedule “Gha” as mentioned in Schedule-B and Schedule-C and by projecting that one has to trespass about 5-7 feet of the petitioners’ share in the suit land, mentioned in Schedule –“Ka” and Schedule “Ga”, there is no way to enter into the decreed land covered by Schedule “Ga”, reiterated that as there is no decree to enable or empower the Civil Nazir to enter the land described in Schedule –“Ka” and Schedule “Ga”, the petitioners had made a prayer before the learned Executing Court to recall the “Writ to the Bailiff to give possession”. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holders submits that the existence of the two gallis (passage) in the suit land, inclusive of one galli (passage) dividing the land described in Schedule “Ka and Schedule “Kha” as well as Schedule “Ga” and Schedule “Gha” had attained finality in three situations, one in the Partition Deed (Ext.1) which was the basis of passing the decree in the suit, secondly, when the decree as drawn up attained finality and thirdly, by virtue of the order dated 18.09.2015, passed by this Court while disposing off CRP No. 383/2015, which has been suppressed by the petitioners, for which on his prayer, this Court, by order dated 17.03.2017, had directed the Registry of this Court to tag the records of the said CRP 383/2015. 6. On perusal of the records of CRP No. 383/15, it is deemed appropriate to quote the operative portion thereof as follows:- “The suit was decreed on the basis of the partition deed which was annexed as Exhibit-1. 6. On perusal of the records of CRP No. 383/15, it is deemed appropriate to quote the operative portion thereof as follows:- “The suit was decreed on the basis of the partition deed which was annexed as Exhibit-1. In Exhibit-1 a map was also annexed. The partition deed speaks about two common gallis one in Schedule-B and one in Schedule-C. The trial Court as well as appellate Court held that the defendants have admitted the common passage and the partition deed. The fact that the plaintiffs is not executable due to absence of common passage was never agitated during the trial or during the appeal. From the map annexed along with the partition deed as well as Schedule to the partition deed, it appears that there are two common passages and therefore, there is no ambiguity to find out the true effect of the decree passed by the trial Court. The executing Court has rightly held that the decree is executable decree. This Court declines to interfere with the order and accordingly, this application is dismissed and disposed of.” 7. It is penned with great pain that in the present revision, the petitioners have not only suppressed the aforesaid order dated 18.09.2015 passed by this Court in CRP 383/15, but they have suppressed also a very material and vital document, i.e. the map which is appended to the Partition Deed i.e. Ext.1, filed as Annexure-G to this revision. Hence, this court after finding that there were suppression of material facts and relevant documents, this court did not permit the learned Counsel for the petitioner to present his further argument on non-existence of two gallis (passage), as in the view of this Court, permitting the petitioners’ counsel to present an argument, which has already attained finality, will be absolutely unnecessary and to put it most politely, an absolute waste of judicial time. 8. At this juncture, when petitioners’ counsel was not permitted to re-agitate the matters which had attained finality, Mr. O.P. Bhati, the learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously submitted that the petitioners had applied for review of the judgment and order dated 18.09.2015 passed by this Court in CRP No. 383/15 and, as such, this revision be adjourned to enable him to bring the same on record. At that stage this court was disinclined to adjourn the matter as there was no stay operating against the said order. At that stage this court was disinclined to adjourn the matter as there was no stay operating against the said order. However, on perusal of the record of CRP No. 383/15, after the delivery of judgment was reserved, it has been seen that the petitioners had indeed applied for review of the said judgment through the same set of counsels who have filed the present revision. The said application for review, filed on 07.11.2015 was registered and numbered as R.A. No. 41/2016, but the same was filed without serving any advance copy thereof to the learned counsels for the respondents, who had appeared in the said CRP No. 383/15. Moreover, the said R.A. No. 41/2016 was listed before the court on 09.12.2016 and the same was withdrawn by order dated 09.12.2006, which reads as follows:- “Heard Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who submits that since the matter has become infructuous, he wants to withdraw the petition. In view of the submission of the learned counsel, he is allowed to withdraw the petition. The case is disposed of as withdrawn.” 9. Thus, it appears that a deliberate attempt was made to somehow get the matter adjourned after this court had expressed its view not to allow argument of matters which had already attained finality by making an incorrect submission at the Bar that there was a review application pending in respect of judgment and order dated 18.09.2015 passed in CRP 383/15. Moreover, in the considered view of this Court, the aforesaid suppression of material facts and documents, more specifically (i) the order dated 18.09.2015 passed by this Court in CRP 383/15, and (ii) the map which is discovered by this Court to be appended to the original Partition Deed i.e. Ext.1, but not filed along with the said Partition Deed at Annexure-G to this revision, and (iii) incorrect statement at the Bar about pendency of R.A. No. 41/2016, cumulatively disentitles the petitioners of a right to be heard in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or for any other relief or reliefs in this revision. In this regard, it would be pertinent to refer to the case of Dalip Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 , where in context of writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had stated as follows:- “4. In Welcom Hotel V. State of A.P. [(1983) 4 SCC 575], the Court held that a party which has mislead the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on merits of the case.” ……… 7. In Prestige Lights Ltd. V. SBI [ (2007) 8 SCC 449 ] it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution…….” …. 10. In K.D. Sharma V. SAIL [(2008) 12 SCC 481] the Court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 227 is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayashree V. Bhagwandas S. Patel [ (2009) 3 SCC 141 ]. …. 24. From what we have mentioned above, it is clear that in this case efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts have been transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and this Court cannot, but be treated as reprehensible. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order under challenge or entertain the appellant’s prayer for setting aside the orders passed by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority.” 10. In the present case in hand, although the petitioners have filed the photocopy of Partition Deed (Ext.1) as Annexure-G to this revision, but they have omitted to provide the map forming an integral part of it, which in the opinion of this Court is only with a view to mislead this court to believe the misapplied argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was only one galli (i.e. passage), and for the same purpose the petitioners had deliberately not filed a copy of the judgment and order dated 18.09.2015 passed by this Court in CRP 383/15, wherein this Court had mentioned about the existence of two gallis (passage). The said finding having attained finality, is sought to be attacked surreptitiously without mentioned about the existence of those in this revision. Thus, in the opinion of this court, the same principle as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is squarely applicable in applications or revisions filed under extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this present revision deserves to be dismissed. 11. Nonetheless, even on merit, it is a well-settled law that a point that has been heard and decided cannot form a ground for revisiting the point even assuming that the view taken in the judgment is erroneous. If one requires an authority on the same, the case of Surendra Kr Vakil V. Chief Executive Officer, reported in (2004) 10 SCC 126 may be seen. Hence, in the view of this court, if this Court proceeds to decide whether there existed two gallis (passage) or one, it would amount to reviewing of the judgment dated 18.09.2015 passed by this Court in CRP No. 383/15.Even on this count, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 12. The only way to question of validity of an otherwise lawful decree can be raised in the execution stage under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. 12. The only way to question of validity of an otherwise lawful decree can be raised in the execution stage under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the present case in hand, the said remedy was availed by the petitioners herein and their petition under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed by order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the learned Executing Court in Title Execution Case No. 27/2011. The said order was challenged in this Court by filing CRP No. 383/15. Thus, when the decree has been found to be executable, it is not open for the petitioners to keep challenging one order after another passed by the learned Executing Court and frustrate the execution in the process. A lis between the litigating parties must be allowed to come to its logical end by its lawful execution. Hence, as the objection under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code has been rejected and/or dismissed, it would be open for the learned Executing Court to proceed with the execution, but at the same time, it must also ensure that the decree is lawfully executed in terms of the decree. 13. Be it stated herein that the petitioners had filed yet another revision before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as CRP No. 80/2016, by which they had assailed order dated 03.02.2016 passed by the learned Executing Court. In the said revision, this court, by order dated 02.03.2016 had stayed the writ insofar as it related to restraining the judgment debtors from entering into the 4 feet wide passage, but made it exlictly clear that the writ insofar as it related to delivery of possession of Schedule-D property in favour of the decree holder is not stayed and the same will be executed. However, when the said revision was also listed together with the present revision, the learned counsel for the petitioners, upon instructions, had prayed to permit him to withdraw the same, and the said prayer was allowed by this Court by passing a separate order on 21.04.2017. 14. Thus, in the present case in hand, notwithstanding the suppression of mateiral facts, this Court has already held in CRP No. 383/15 that the decree is executable. The decree passed by the learned Trial Court had been tested in first appeal and then in Second Appeal. 14. Thus, in the present case in hand, notwithstanding the suppression of mateiral facts, this Court has already held in CRP No. 383/15 that the decree is executable. The decree passed by the learned Trial Court had been tested in first appeal and then in Second Appeal. Moreover, from the sequence as mentioned above, this court is of the well considered opinion that after the decree had attained finality, the petitioners are indulging in filing misconceived and/or frivolous petitions as well as successive revisions before this Court against each and every order passed by the learned Executing Court in order to somehow frustrate the execution of the lawful decree. Such a practice is not to be encouraged, rather, nipped in the bud. At the same time, it must be taken care that the execution should be proceeded strictly in terms of the decree. 15. Under the circumstances as indicated above, and in view of the conduct of the petitioners herein, it is deemed appropriate in exercise of extraordinary superintending jurisdiction of this Court to provide that the learned Executing Court as well as the Bailiff of the Court shall proceed with the execution in accordance with the map which is annexed to the Partition Deed (Ext.1), while executing the decree dated 17.08.2011 and if any of the two such galli (passage) as shown in the map appended to Partition Deed (Ext.1) is not physically found, it would be open to the Bailiff to physically measure the entire suit land marked as Schedule-Ka, Schedule-Kha, Schedule-Ga and Schedule-Gha in the said map of Exhibit-1 and deliver the possession of the suit land described in Schedule-Kha and Schedule-Ga to the respondents/decree holder in accordance with law, as this Court finds that the exact measurement of the dimensions of the rooms and the galli (passage) is mentioned there. In order to facilitate this, the learned Executing Court is directed to provide a true copy of the said map appended to Partition Deed (Ext.1) to the Bailiff of the Court so that none of the execution is carried out strictly in terms of the decree drawn up and sent for execution without any further delay. 16. With the aforesaid observations, this revision is dismissed. 16. With the aforesaid observations, this revision is dismissed. In view of the fact that an attempt has been made to suppress material facts, this court deems it fit to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioners, which may be deposited before the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of one month from today, which is to be utilized for providing free legal aid to the eligible persons. Hence, a copy of this order may be sent to the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Committee to enable them to realize such cost.