JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner-Damodar Valley Corporation, which was defendant no. 6 in Title Suit No. 04 of 1986, is aggrieved of the order dated 22.08.2008 passed in Execution Case No. 01 of 2006 by which its application seeking discharge of the decree which was prepared in Title Suit No. 04 of 1986 has been dismissed. 2. By an order dated 15.07.2009, operation of order dated 22.08.2008 was stayed by this Court. 3. Briefly stated, Title Suit No. 04 of 1986 was instituted for restoration of possession of the plaintiff over the suit property by evicting defendant nos. 1 to 5; the Damodar Valley Corporation-defendant no. 6 had appeared in the suit. The suit was decreed on contest with a direction to the defendants to vacate the suit land within 90 days and if any construction has been made that also to be removed. It was further directed that if the defendants fail to comply with the aforesaid direction, the plaintiff shall be entitled to seek eviction of the defendants through the process of the court. Against the judgment dated 09.03.1989, the defendant nos. 1 to 5 filed Title Appeal No. 58 of 1989 which was dismissed on 31.01.2006. The defendant no.6-Damodar Valley Corporation did not prefer any appeal against the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 04 of 1986. After the dismissal of Title Appeal No. 58 of 1989 the decree-holder levied Execution Case No. 01 of 2006. In the execution case, the petitioner-Damodar Valley Corporation has filed an application on 08.07.2008 with a prayer that, “the decree may kindly be discharged from execution”. This application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 22.08.2008. 4. Paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the rejoinder filed by decree-holder to the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner is extracted below: 8. That, in this proceeding D.P. already been issued by your honour’s order and the Nazir and his assistant went there on 29.06.2008 for giving delivery of possession over the land in question to decree-holder and at time delivery of possession the representative of judgment-debtor namely Personnel Manager Sushil Kumar Jha given a request letter to the Nazir to allow him 10 days time for D.P. 9. That, thereafter the Estate officer of judgment-debtor no. That, thereafter the Estate officer of judgment-debtor no. 6 fraudulently send a letter to the decree-holder on 07.07.2008 and informed him that the allotment of Plot No. 9/1 i.e. suit land is hereby cancelled, meaning thereby the judgment-debtor disobeyed the order passed this learned court and the judgment-debtor is liable to be prosecuted for the same. 5. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner-Damodar Valley Corporation is that after order dated 07.07.2008, by which the license granted to the plaintiff by the Damodar Valley Corporation stood cancelled, the decree has become in-executable. 6. Mr. R. N. Sahay, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the suit no relief was sought against the defendant no. 6 and therefore the petitioner-Damodar Valley Corporation should not have been made a party in the execution case. In support of the aforesaid contention, Mr. R. N. Sahay, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions in “108 Pujay Pad Advait Panch Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Bara Udasin Nirman Vs. Rameshwar Mandal” reported in 1984 PLJR 79 and “D. P. Mohapatra Radhi Dei Vs. Lalit Bihari Mohanty” reported in AIR 1991 Orissa 36. 7. In the first place, it needs to be recorded that once the defendant no.6-Damodar Valley Corporation did not file an application in Title Suit No. 04 of 1986 for striking-out it from array of the parties and it continued to appear in the suit, it must be held that on the plea that it is not a necessary party the defendant no. 6 now cannot be deleted from Execution Case No. 01 of 2006. Secondly, if the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the decree is not directed against it and therefore it should have been deleted from the execution case is accepted, the application dated 08.07.2008 seeking discharge of the decree execution (wrongly mentioned) cannot be pressed by the petitioner; an order on discharge or satisfaction of the decree would be different from an order holding that the decree has been rendered in-executable and, moreover, such an order cannot be passed at the instance of a party which seeks its deletion from the execution case. Apparently, the petitioner has taken contradictory stands. Apparently, the petitioner has taken contradictory stands. In so far as the plea raised on the basis of order dated 07.07.2008 by which the license granted to the plaintiff has been cancelled is concerned, it has to be kept in mind that in the judgment dated 09.03.1989 in Title Suit No. 04 of 1986 a direction was issued to the defendants to remove the encroachment within 90 days. The execution case was levied after dismissal of Title Appeal No. 58 of 1989 on 23.05.2006 and therefore a decision which has been taken by the petitioner-Damodar Valley Corporation several years after the judgment in the suit cannot be a ground to dismiss the execution case or to hold that the decree stands discharged. The judgment in “Panch Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara” has been rendered in a different set of facts and circumstances. In that case grievance of the applicant who claimed themselves tenants of the suit properties was that without ascertaining through a Pleader Commissioner whether they are tenants or not the decree which admittedly was not against them was executed. The Patna High Court has held that all that the Executing Court should have done was to give atleast symbolic possession of the suit properties to the decree-holder. This judgment therefore is squarely against the stand taken by the petitioner that on cancellation of license the decree is discharged. In view of the judgment in “Panch Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara”, even assuming that the order dated 07.07.2008 is valid or has been accepted by the plaintiff, the petitioner cannot seek discharge of the decree. The application dated 08.07.2008 filed by the petitioner was wholly misconceived. 8. In the above facts and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 15.07.2009 stands vacated.