JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 20th July, 2018 (Annexure-12) passed in Execution Case No.05/2010 as also the order dated 03.10.2018 by which the review petition of the petitioners dated 13.08.2018 has been rejected, are under challenge. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is that the plaintiffs/respondents have filed title suit being Title Suit No.17 of 1998 for adjudication of their right, title and interest over the suit land, fully and particularly described in the plaint and their possession over the suit property be declared and confirmed and if not found in possession a decree for recovery of possession be passed and the plaintiffs be put in possession thereof after dispossession of the defendants there from and a decree for perpetual injunction be passed against the defendants/petitioners from carrying on or putting any kind of construction over the land in suit and the cost of the suit be awarded, the suit was decreed by holding therein that the plaintiffs have got right, title and interest over the suit property on the basis of sale deed executed on 22.07.1995 by Soma Oraon and Gonda Oraon and the plaintiffs have also been found to be in possession of the property and the sale deed also executed in favour of the plaintiffs dated 22.07.1995 is a valid, legal and genuine, so the defendants/petitioners are perpetually injuncted from making any hindrance in exercise of the right of the plaintiffs/respondents over the suit properties. 3. The petitioners/defendants have filed title appeal being Title Appeal No.61 of 2009 before the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was dismissed vide order dated 14.01.2010 against which second appeal was preferred being Second Appeal No.40 of 2010 before this Court which has been admitted for hearing and the same is pending for disposal. 4. The respondents/plaintiffs/decree-holders have filed Execution Case No.05 of 2010 on 15.04.2010 before the Court of Additional Munsif, Ranchi praying therein that the petitioners/judgment debtors have been disobeying the decree for perpetual injunction passed against them and causing disturbance and hindrance in peaceful possession of opposite parties/decree-holders over the suit property fully mentioned in the schedule of the decree under execution and therefore, are liable to be detained in civil prison for disobeying the decree passed by the Court. 5. 5. The petitioners/defendants/judgment debtors have appeared and filed show cause in the Execution Case No.05/2010 stating therein that the petitioners/judgment debtors are the purchasers of the land and are in possession of plot No.483/B measuring an area of 12 kathas 4 chhatak 40 sq. feet, the judgment debtors do not have any concern with the land alleged to have been purchased by the decree holders described in her sale deed as 483/A in the written statement as also with the specific plea that the plot No.483/B of the judgment debtors is surrounded by boundary wall and as such there is no possibility that the petitioners/judgment debtors would disturb or obstruct in the alleged possession of the opposite parties/decree holders. 6. The decree holders have filed an application in Execution Case No.05/2010 for amendment of the execution petition wherein prayer has been made for amendment in paragraph-6 of the execution petition after line-8, the following words be inserted “the plaintiffs/decree-holders further pray that they may be put in khass possession over the lands in the suit after dispossessing the defendants/judgment-debtors there from through the process of Court.” 7. The aforesaid amendment petition has been allowed by the Additional Munsif, Ranchi, upon this, judgment debtors have filed an application before the Additional Munsif, Ranchi on 13.03.2014 stating therein that the Court has confirmed the possession of the decree-holders in its judgment while deciding issue no.8 at paragraph-30 of the judgment. Thus, the decree-holders have been found in possession and they cannot be asked for recovery of possession, they have also filed an application on 07.05.2014 praying therein to amend the decree in conformity with the judgment passed by the Additional Munsif, Ranchi wherein he has confirmed the decree, rejoinder to that effect has been filed by the decree holder, upon appreciating the stand taken by the parties, the Additional Munsif, Ranchi has passed an order on 16.03.2016 whereby and where under the petition filed by the judgment debtors has been dismissed holding therein that the amendment is not beyond the decree. 8. 8. The order dated 16.03.2016 has been challenged by the judgment debtors by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2157 of 2016 wherein this Court has passed an order refraining the executing court in proceeding further with the execution proceeding or till disposal of the petition under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the trial court, whichever is earlier, and accordingly, disposed of the writ petition. 9. The judgment debtors have filed a petition on 07.05.2016 under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Misc. Case 4 No.09/2016, responded by the decree-holders on 22.07.2017 which was disposed of by the Munsif vide an order passed on 11.09.2017 for amendment of the decree in the light of the judgment passed in Title Suit No.17/1998, accordingly, the decree was amended vide order dated 11.09.2017 wherein the relief for delivery of possession was removed and the decree was amended in view of the amendment in favour of the decree-holders. 10. The trial Court has again passed an order on 20th July, 2018 in Execution Case No.05/2010 against the amended decree ordering therein that the possession is sought in execution of the decree of perpetual injunction an appropriate order in issuance of warrant of possession by declining the objection of the judgment debtors made in this regard which was again questioned by filing review but the same has also been dismissed against which the present writ petition has been filed. 11. Mr. A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel representing the petitioners has raised the issue about non-applicability of the provision of Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure as also the decree holders have never said anywhere that they have been dispossessed of the suit property after passing of the decree. 12. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and after appreciating his submission and by going across the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the finding recorded in the impugned order is of the view that before entering into the legality and propriety of the order, the provision of Order XXI Rule 32 needs to be referred herein, which reads hereunder as : “32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction.—(1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, of by both. (2) Where the party against whom a decree for specific performance or for an injunction has been passed is a corporation, the decree may be enforced by the attachment of the property of the corporation or, with the leave of the Court, by the detention in the civil prison of the directors or other principal officers thereof, or by both attachment and detention. (3) Where any attachment under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) has remained in force for [six months] if the judgment-debtor has not obeyed the decree and the decree-holder has applied to have the attached property sold, such property may be sold; and out of the proceeds the Court may award to the decree-holder such compensation as it thinks fit, and shall pay the balance (if any) to the judgment-debtor on his application. (4) Where the judgment-debtor has obeyed the decree and paid all costs of executing the same which he is bound to pay, or where, at the end of [six months] from the date of the attachment, no application to have the property sold has been made, or if made has been refused, the attachment shall cease. (4) Where the judgment-debtor has obeyed the decree and paid all costs of executing the same which he is bound to pay, or where, at the end of [six months] from the date of the attachment, no application to have the property sold has been made, or if made has been refused, the attachment shall cease. (5) Where a decree for specific performance of a contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed, the Court may, in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the processes aforesaid, direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree-holder or some other person appointed by the Court, at the cost of the judgment-debtor, and upon the act being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such manner as the Court may direct and may be recovered as if they were included in the decree.” It is evident from the aforesaid provision that sub-clause (1) of Rule 32 applies to injunctions both mandatory and prohibitory where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, of by both. The sub-clause (5) authorizes the Court to assist the decree-holder to occupy the premises or someone else on his behalf in pursuance of the decree of mandatory injunction. It does not conceive on a situation that if the judgment debtor is in possession, the decree-holder for all times to come will be helpless and shall have to bring a suit for recovery of possession, such a meaning if given to sub-rule (5) would make the purpose and intention of the rule redundant and meaningless. It does not conceive on a situation that if the judgment debtor is in possession, the decree-holder for all times to come will be helpless and shall have to bring a suit for recovery of possession, such a meaning if given to sub-rule (5) would make the purpose and intention of the rule redundant and meaningless. It further appears from the aforesaid provision that when a decree for mandatory injunction is passed, it cannot be held to be un-executable and the decree-holder cannot be forced to fresh litigation after having fought litigation once for quite a number of years. Law does not countenance this nor had the legislation intended to defeat the decree of mandatory injunction simply because the judgment-debtor has refused to vacate the premises which under the decree he had to vacate. It is further evident that a decree for injunction is executable but only in the manner provided under Order XXI Rule 32. The decree-holder is to satisfy the Court that the judgment-debtor despite having an opportunity of obeying the decree has willfully failed to obey it and thereupon the Court has to issue the process against the judgment-debtor, it must be satisfied that the judgment debtor has had an opportunity of obeying the decree but has willfully failed to obey it. The judgment-debtor can suffer detention in civil prison, attachment of property and in addition or in lieu of the above, the decree holder or some other person may be directed by the Court to enforce the compliance of the decree at the costs of the judgment debtor, that would mean that even if the judgment debtor is in possession, which possession he has to vacate under the decree, he can be compelled to vacate the premises under sub-rule (5) of Rule 32. The court will come to the help of the decree holder and give him all possible assistance to occupy the possession, if it is practicable for the decree-holder to occupy the possession. That inevitably would mean that judgment debtor could have been thrown out from the property, from which he is directed to be evicted, by force. 13. In the light of the aforesaid background, the ground agitated by the petitioners needs to be answered. 14. That inevitably would mean that judgment debtor could have been thrown out from the property, from which he is directed to be evicted, by force. 13. In the light of the aforesaid background, the ground agitated by the petitioners needs to be answered. 14. The first ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the provision of Order XXI Rule 32 (5) of C.P.C. does not apply in the present case. 15. The factual aspect which is not in dispute in this case that a title suit being Title Suit No.17/1998 for adjudication of right, title and interest over the suit land described in the plaint and the possession over the suit property be declared and confirmed and if not found in possession, decree for recovery of possession be passed and the plaintiffs be put in possession thereof after dispossession of the defendants there from and a decree for perpetual injunction be passed against the defendants. The suit is decreed on contest and the plaintiffs’ right, title and interest over the suit property has been found on the basis of sale deed executed on 22.07.1995 by Soma Oraon and Gonda Oraon, the plaintiffs have also been found to be in possession of the suit property, the sale deed has also executed in favour of the plaintiffs dated 22.07.1995 is a valid, legal and genuine, so the defendants are perpetually injuncted from making any hindrance in the exercise of rights of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The said judgment/decree was challenged before the appellate forum being Title Appeal No.61/2009 which has been dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2010 and second appeal is lying pending before this Court being Second Appeal No.40 of 2010. The said judgment/decree was challenged before the appellate forum being Title Appeal No.61/2009 which has been dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2010 and second appeal is lying pending before this Court being Second Appeal No.40 of 2010. The execution case has been filed by the decree holder praying therein that the judgment debtors have been disobeying the decree for perpetual injunction passed against them and are causing disturbance and obstruction in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs/decree holders over the suit property fully mentioned in the schedule of the decree under execution, the relief sought for in the said execution case has been defended by filing reply to the show cause inter alia stating therein that the judgment debtors do not have any concern with the land alleged to have been purchased by the decree holders described in her sale deed as 483/A rather he is possessing title over the plot No.483/B surrounded by boundary wall and as such there is no possibility that the petitioners/judgment debtors would disturb or obstruct in the alleged possession of the opposite parties/decree holders. The decree-holders thereafter have filed a petition under Order XI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to the effect that in paragraph-6 of the execution petition after line-8, the following words be inserted “the plaintiffs/decree-holders further pray that they may be put in khass possession over the lands in the suit after dispossessing the defendants/judgment-debtors there from through the process of Court.” The judgment debtors have filed a separate application on 13.03.2014 stating therein that the trial court has confirmed the possession of the decree holders/opposite parties in its judgment while deciding issue no.8 at paragraph-30, thus, the decree-holders have been found in possession and as such they cannot be asked for the relief of recovery of possession. The judgment debtors have further filed a petition on 07.05.2014 praying therein to amend the decree in conformity with the judgment passed by the trial court wherein he has confirmed the decree and the court of Munsif after hearing the parties, has passed an order on 16.03.2016 by dismissing the same holding that the amendment dated 22.01.2014 cannot be said to be behind the decree. The aforesaid order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.2157 of 2016 wherein the order has been passed refraining the executing court in proceeding further with the execution proceeding or till disposal of the petition under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the trial court, whichever is earlier. The judgment debtors have also filed a petition on 07.05.2016 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Misc. Case No.09/2016 which was disposed of by the trial Court on 11.09.2017 wherein the relief for delivery of possession was removed and the decree was amended in view of the amendment made in favour of the decree holders as would appear from Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The order dated 11.09.2017 passed in Misc. Case No.09/2016 has never been challenged by the petitioners. 16. It needs to refer that the nature of decree having been changed by passing an order on 11.09.2017 by passing a decree to the effect that merely if the decree has been passed for confirmation of possession, executing court cannot pass order for recovery of possession. Implied meaning of confirmation of possession is for recovery of possession. This Court therefore, deem it fit and proper to discuss about the meaning of “confirmation of possession.” The issue about the meaning of confirmation of possession fell for consideration before the Division Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Chandi Prasad-Vs.-Awadh Narayan Jha reported in AIR 1952 Patna 143, wherein, it has been observed that when there is a prayer to the effect about “Confirmation of Possession”, the implied interpretation of it would be for recovery of possession of the lands. In the case of Jagabandhu Nayak & Another-Vs.-Gouri Bandha and others reported in AIR 1985 Orissa 126, it has been held at paragraph 6 by taking the aid of the another judgment rendered in the case of V. Krishna Rao Dora v. Kotini Sitaram Dora reported in (1973) 39 Cut LT 975, which reads hereunder as : “6. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the suit must fail as there had been no prayer for recovery of possession. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the suit must fail as there had been no prayer for recovery of possession. In para 9 of the plaint, it has been specifically prayed that plaintiffs' title over 'Ka' and 'Kha' schedule lands may be declared and possession be confirmed and the defendants be directed to fill up the portion which they have dug at their expenses. The plaint read as a whole must be interpreted that possession was also prayed for in the suit. In the case of V. Krishna Rao Dora v. Kotini Sitaram Dora reported in (1973) 39 Cut LT 975 this court has held that the court can order recovery of possession though not specifically asked for and though only confirmation of possession was sought for if necessary court-fee on the plaint had been paid. Para 6 of the said judgment is quoted herein below in extenso : "The learned single Judge also held that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiffs did not ask for the relief of recovery of possession and were satisfied with the relief of confirmation of possession. Law is now well settled that both "Recovery of Possession" and "Confirmation of Possession" are consequential relief’s. If the suit is for declaration of title and any one of these consequential relief’s, then, the plaintiffs are to pay ad valorem court-fee. In this case, ad valorem court-fee has been paid on the amount for which the suit was valued. In fact, the quantum of court-fee being disputed the matter was ultimately decided by the taxing judge who held that the ad valorem court-fee paid on the disputed lands on the reduced valuation was sufficient. Doubtless, when possession is declared in favour of a party in a proceeding under S.145, Cr.P.C. the party not in possession must ask for the relief of recovery of possession, he having been held as being out of possession. But where ad valorem court fee has been paid, it is open to the court to grant the relief of recovery of possession even if the prayer is for confirmation of possession. Such a relief would come within the ambit of the wide powers conferred upon the courts to grant relief and that is why an omnibus prayer is added in the plaint that the court may grant such relief as it thinks fit. Such a relief would come within the ambit of the wide powers conferred upon the courts to grant relief and that is why an omnibus prayer is added in the plaint that the court may grant such relief as it thinks fit. In this case, the plaint contains such a prayer. Even if such a prayer had not been made, the court is not powerless to grant the relief. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the relief of recovery of possession can be granted to the plaintiffs even though they prayed for confirmation of possession as they had paid ad valorem court-fee which is payable in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession." In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents.” A Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Kishun Choudhary & Ors.-Vs.-Ramdeo Choudhary reported in 2005 (3) J C R 188 (Jhr.) at paragraph 8 has held, which reads hereunder as: “8. From the discussions made above and after going through the respective claims of the parties together with references cited on their behalf, it is clear that all the argument raised in course of submission by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent have been answered by the leaned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants and from the fact that the defendant-respondent claimed that no relief for recovery of possession has been made, has been answered by the case law reported in AIR 1952 Pat 143 (supra) cited on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, which shows that prayer for relief of confirmation of possession includes prayer for recovery of possession and that has been followed by Orissa High Court in AIR 1985 Ori 126 (supra).” It is, thus, evident that if no relief for recovery of possession has been made, the prayer for relief of “Confirmation of Possession”, would mean for recovery of possession. In the light of this position of law, as has been interpreted and settled in the judgment referred hereinabove, this Court on scrutiny of the relief, sought for in the plaint by the plaintiff, has found that one of the prayers is “the position thereon be confirmed” and in consequent upon the same, the decree has been passed by the trial court about “Confirmation of Possession” and therefore, the “Confirmation of Possession” will include delivery of possession. Further it can be said that when there is a prayer in the plaint and decree passed thereupon by ordering for “Confirmation of Possession”, the word confirmation signifies that the decree holder may be found to be in possession, then only the possession would be said to be confirmed and, therefore, when the executing Court is proceeding for “Confirmation of Possession”, taking into consideration the decree passed for “Delivery of Possession” cannot be said to have committed any illegality. 17. The question of applicability of the provision of Order XXI Rule 32 (5) has been emphasized by the learned counsel for the petitioners since the order impugned dated 20th July, 2018 as also dated 03rd October, 2018 are based upon the provision of sub-clause (5) of Order XXI Rule 32 as has been referred hereinabove, the scope of the provision of Order XXI Rule 32 (1)(5) wherefrom it is evident that the sub-rule (5) authorizes the court to assist the decree-holder to occupy the premises or someone else on his behalf in pursuance of the decree of mandatory injunction and if the judgment debtor is in possession, the decree-holder for all times to come will be helpless and shall have to bring a suit for recovery of possession and if that be so, the provision of sub-rule (5) would make the purpose and intention of the rule redundant and meaningless. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the decree-holders have been found to be in possession and that has been taken note in the decree also and as such there is no occasion for the executing court to proceed for recovery of possession but here, after passing of the order by the executing court on 11.09.2017, the plaint has been amended as also the decree from confirmation of possession to that of recovery of possession and if the recovery of possession has been made a part of the decree by an order passed on 11.09.2017, the same having not been questioned by the petitioners, if the executing court is proceeding for executing the decree for recovery of possession even in the original decree, the stipulation has been made about confirmation of possession then also in view of the discussion made above regarding the meaning of “confirmation of possession” as has been dealt with by the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Chandi Prasad-Vs.-Awadh Narayan Jha (supra), Jagabandhu Nayak & Another-Vs.-Gouri Bandha and others (supra), V. Krishna Rao Dora v. Kotini Sitaram Dora (supra) and Jai Kishun Choudhary & Ors.-Vs.-Ramdeo Choudhary(supra), the said action of the executing court cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. 18. The trial Court while passing the order by dealing with the scope of sub-clause (1) to Order XXI Rule 32 and sub-clause (5) thereof, has not passed an order of civil prison by taking aid of the word after the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure by insertion of an explanation to that effect w.e.f. 01.07.2002 that “the act required to be done” covers prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions. The expression “the act required to be done” means what has to be done to enforce the injunction. In the present case, the decree-holders have made a complaint before the executing court that the order of injunction is being violated and as such the trial court by taking recourse of sub-clause (5) to Order XXI Rule 32 by acting in pursuance of the insertion of the word i.e., “the act required to be done”, to enforce the injunction cannot be said to have committed any illegality. In view thereof, the contention agitated by the petitioners is having no force. 19. In view thereof, the contention agitated by the petitioners is having no force. 19. The second ground has been agitated that the decree-holders have never stated anywhere that they have been dispossessed of the suit property after passing of the decree and as such there is no occasion to raise the issue but this ground is also having no force since the petition to that effect has been filed for making amendment in the plaint as also the decree, which has been allowed vide order dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure-10) wherein the trial court after discussing the thing elaborately by recording a finding that even if the decree holders have been found to be in possession but if in the execution application, the recovery of possession has been prayed and if it would be allowed, no prejudice would be cause to the judgment debtors, the said order having not been assailed before any higher forum, hence, the ground which is being taken by the petitioners/judgment debtors, no such ground has ever raised by the decree-holders, available to be agitated by him after the order dated 11.09.2017. Further it also needs to refer that the judgment debtors/petitioners although has filed second appeal but instead of pursuing the said appeal by getting an interim order against the judgment which is the subject matter of the execution case but the petition for installing the execution proceeding has been filed, therefore also, no relief can be granted by this Court by making interference with the order passed by the executing court. 20. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the orders impugned suffers from no infirmity warranting any interference by this Court under the revisable jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, accordingly, the writ petition fails and stands dismissed.