JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI , J. Heard Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amartya Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Shashank Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4(iii). 2. So far other opposite parties are concerned, notices upon them have already been effected, however, they have chosen not to appear in the matter and, as such, this petition is being heard in absence of opposite parties, who have not appeared in spite of valid service of notice. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.03.2023 passed in Execution Case No.367 of 2018 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-IV, Dhanbad, whereby, he has been pleased to allow the petition dated 17.02.2023 filed by the decree holders/plaintiffs under Order XXI Rule 32(5) read with Rule 35 of the CPC. 4. Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.55 of 2009 before the learned Court on 19.02.2009 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the land described in the schedule of the plaint and alternative prayer was made for recovery of possession of the land described in the schedule of the plaint. He submits that on contest the said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 11.06.2018 (decree signed on 20.06.2018) in favour of the opposite parties/plaintiffs. He further submits that against the said decree, the petitioner herein preferred First Appeal No.309 of 2018, which is still pending in the Court of the learned District Judge, Dhanbad. He also submits that in the meantime, the decree holder instituted execution case being Execution Case No.367 of 2018, in which, the petitioner herein, who is judgment debtor has filed objection under Section 47 of the CPC, which was registered as Misc. Case No.61 of 2019 and the same has been decided by the learned Court vide order dated 06.07.2019. He then submits that in the meantime, the learned Executing Court has issued the writ of delivery of possession and Nazir was directed to execute the decree. He further submits that the report of the Nazir contained in Annexure-8 is there, wherein, he has stated that partly the decree has been executed and he has found that there are five rooms in place of two rooms. He further submits that the report of the Nazir contained in Annexure-8 is there, wherein, he has stated that partly the decree has been executed and he has found that there are five rooms in place of two rooms. He submits that thereafter another petition was filed by the decree holder under Order XXI Rule 35 of the CPC, which has been allowed by the learned Court illegally. He submits that in this background, this petition has been filed and the decree was passed only for two rooms and vacant possession of 12 decimals of land, however, there are five rooms and, as such, the direction of issuing fresh writ of delivery of possession is illegal. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties opposed the prayer and submits that only remedy with the petitioner, if he is still aggrieved, is that to get proper order by the learned first appellate court as the decree is under challenge either he may take stay order or he may agitate all the grounds in the said first appeal. 6. It is an admitted position that the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/opposite parties and aggrieved with that, the petitioner herein has preferred the said first appeal, which is still pending. The objection was made by the petitioner under Section 47 of the CPC, which has already been decided by the learned Court vide order dated 06.07.2019. The writ of delivery of possession has been partly executed in light of the Nazir’s report, contained in Annexure-8. Subsequently, further petition was filed for issuance of fresh writ of delivery of possession, which has been allowed by the learned Court. The writ of delivery of possession has been partly executed in light of the Nazir’s report, contained in Annexure-8. Subsequently, further petition was filed for issuance of fresh writ of delivery of possession, which has been allowed by the learned Court. It transpires from the said judgment impugned herein dated 20.03.2023 that the judgment debtors have themselves admitted in paragraph 13 of the written statement that apart from two rooms, Khapra pose house besides the existing house upon vacant portion of Plot No.1458 has been constructed by his maternal grandfather and the learned Court has found that all the issues have already been adjudicated in the judgment and delivered in the said suit and, thereafter, direction has been issued to hand over the vacant possession of two rooms situated over the land described in the schedule of the plaint to plaintiffs within 60 days from the date of decree as well as direction was also there of permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the schedule land in any manner. The Court finds that the direction of first writ of delivery of possession was not executed and, thereafter, the learned Court has passed the second order on the petition under Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC and if such a situation is there, the learned Court has rightly passed the order. Further, it is well-settled that the first appeal is continuation of trial court’s proceeding and all the grounds can be looked into by the learned first appellate court and so far as the case in hand is concerned, the first appeal preferred by the petitioner is still pending before the Court of the learned District Judge, Dhanbad. 7. In the aforesaid backgrounds, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-IV, Dhanbad in Execution Case No.367 of 2018 and, as such, this petition is dismissed. 8. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, is vacated.