JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent State. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge-I, Rajmahal in Title Execution Case No.2 of 2021 arising out of Title Suit No.18 of 2001. 3. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 instituted the Title Suit No.18 of 2001 in which the petitioner was one of the defendant and suit was instituted for declaration of title and for delivery of possession through the machinery of the Court and the suit after contest was dismissed and decree is drawn vide judgment dated 26.07.2013 by the learned Sr. Civil Judge-II, Rajmahal. He submits that being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 preferred civil appeal being Civil Appeal No.21 of 2013 which was allowed by the judgment dated 04.03.2020 and pursuant to that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 has instituted the Execution Case No.2 of 2021. He submits in that case the petition under Section 47 read with 151 of CPC has been filed stating that the said execution case is not maintainable which has been wrongly rejected by the learned Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the decree is there and in view of the decree the execution case has been instituted and the learned Court has rightly passed the order as no cogent reason has been disclosed as to why the execution case is not maintainable. 5. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the decree is there and in view of the decree the execution case has been instituted and the learned Court has rightly passed the order as no cogent reason has been disclosed as to why the execution case is not maintainable. 5. It is an admitted position that the suit is instituted by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 being Title Suit No.18 of 2001 which was dismissed pursuant to that the appeal being Civil Appeal No.21 of 2013 has been preferred which was allowed in favour of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 herein and against the appellate court’s judgment, the petitioner herein is not moved before any higher court by way of filing second appeal or any other appropriate petition and the execution case has been instituted in which such petition has been filed and the only ground is taken that execution case is not maintainable and how it is not maintainable is not disclosed and the decree is already there and for implementation of the decree the execution case has been instituted and in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the order. 6. There is no illegality in the impugned order, as such this petition is dismissed.