JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. A.C. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ali, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Executing Court”) in Title Execution No. 53/2018 whereby Petition No. 247/2023 filed under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) challenging the executability of the decree dated 30.06.2018 in Title Suit No. 136/2013 passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) was rejected. 3. It is seen from the materials on record that the learned Trial Court had decreed the suit being Title Suit No. 136/2013, thereby granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the Schedule-A land by evicting the defendants and removing all structures constructed by the defendants or by their men, agents and employees over the said land. It is relevant to take note of that in the said suit being Title Suit No. 136/2013, the plaintiffs had sought for recovery of possession of the Schedule-A land. The Schedule-A land, so described in the plaint of the suit, is reproduced herein under: “Schedule –A Land measuring 1 (one) Katha covered by K.P. Patta No. 14 (old)/32(new) Dag No. 77 (old)/ 270 (new) at Maz-Jalukbari under Jalukbari Mouza, Dist: Kamrup (M) bounded by- North- Md. Saif Uddin Ahmed. South- Sondarbory Path. East- Sri Pradip Das. West- Abjan Nessa” 4. This Court has duly taken note of that in the written statement filed by the defendants, the Schedule to the plaint was never contested. However, pursuant to the decree so passed, an application was filed by the petitioners herein who were the judgment debtors, contesting the executability of the decree on the ground that the land so described in Schedule-A which was decreed, was not identifiable. 5. However, pursuant to the decree so passed, an application was filed by the petitioners herein who were the judgment debtors, contesting the executability of the decree on the ground that the land so described in Schedule-A which was decreed, was not identifiable. 5. The learned Executing Court after taking into account the materials on record and the submissions so made by the parties, observed that during the pendency of the suit on account of the resettlement proceedings, the Dag No. and the Patta No. have changed and as such directed the Nazir to execute the decree on the basis of the old map and submit a report. 6. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record. 7. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioners herein who were the judgment debtors never contested the Schedule to the plaint in their written statement. Admittedly, during the pendency of the suit, on account of the resettlement proceedings, there has been a change in the respective Dag No’s. and Patta No’s. and it appears from the discussion so made by the learned Executing Court that this very aspect have been duly taken note of. 8. This Court further finds it relevant to observe that the learned Executing Court being conferred with the power to deal with the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree has to take appropriate steps so that the fruits of the decree are enjoyed by the decree holder. 9. This Court duly takes note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar & Another reported in (2003) 8 SCC 289 where in the Supreme Court categorically observed that where there is no challenge made to such description of the Schedule land in the suit, such challenge be not permitted in the execution proceedings. Paragraph No. 22 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under: “22. All these facts apart, we notice that nowhere in the petition the respondent tenants claim to be in possession of any shop other than Shop No. 3 in regard to which they have suffered an eviction order. Paragraph No. 22 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under: “22. All these facts apart, we notice that nowhere in the petition the respondent tenants claim to be in possession of any shop other than Shop No. 3 in regard to which they have suffered an eviction order. It is not their case that they are also in possession of some other property in regard to which there is no eviction order but the landlord is trying to take possession in these execution proceedings. We have specifically asked the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that apart from Shop No. 3 belonging to the appellant, are the respondents in possession of any part of the property bearing No. EK 172/2 situated at Chowk Panjeer, Jalandhar. The learned counsel was not able to give any satisfactory reply to our question which would only mean that the respondents are not in possession of any other property other than Shop No. 3 leased out to them in the abovementioned property belonging to the appellant. That is also why they prayed for restoration of possession. Therefore, raising a dispute in regard to the description or identity of the suit schedule property or a dispute in regard to the boundary of the suit schedule property is only a bogey to delay the eviction by the abuse of the process of court. Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment-debtors to deny the decree-holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law’s delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system.” 10. This Court has duly taken note of that the learned Executing Court having taken into account that there was no challenge to the Schedule to the plaint during the trial and the Dag Nos. and Patta Nos. having changed, had observed that this aspect of the matter would not impact the decision of the Court. The said observations made by the learned Executing Court in the impugned order, in the opinion of this Court appears to be correct. 11. and Patta Nos. having changed, had observed that this aspect of the matter would not impact the decision of the Court. The said observations made by the learned Executing Court in the impugned order, in the opinion of this Court appears to be correct. 11. However, this Court also finds it very pertinent to take note of that the learned Executing Court instead of directing the Civil Nazir to take steps for execution of the decree with the help of the Revenue Authorities, directed the Civil Nazir to take steps on his own for execution on the basis of the old revenue map. This, in the opinion of this Court, was not proper, taking into account that the Civil Nazir did not have the expertise in that regard. 12. It has been submitted by Mr. A.C. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that based upon the directions so passed in the impugned order dated 24.01.2024, the execution has already been carried out and the decree is duly satisfied. 13. Taking into account the above, as the decree has already been executed, this Court now would not be in a position to interfere with the order dated 24.01.2024 although the directions, issued to the Civil Nazir to execute on the old map without the assistance of the Revenue Authorities was not proper. 14. Accordingly, this Court closes the instant petition, but, however, gives the liberty to the petitioners who are the judgment debtors in the said proceedings to file appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court as per the appropriate provision of law including Section 47 of the Code, if during the execution proceedings carried out, any land was handed over beyond the decree. This liberty is granted taking into account that the learned Executing Court continues to retain jurisdiction in respect to the decree even after the closure of the execution proceedings. 15. This Court further observes that upon such application being filed, the learned Executing Court shall adjudicate the same on its own merits without being influenced by the order dated 24.01.2024 as well as the present judgment. 16. With the above, the instant petition stands disposed of. 17. Send back the LCR.