JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. C. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. D. Devi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court by challenging the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in Misc(J) Case No. 70/2023 by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Darrang, Mangaldoi (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”). It is seen that vide the order dated 18.12.2024 the application so filed by the petitioner under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) was rejected on the ground that the learned Trial Court could not have made correction to the decree dated 23.01.1982 inasmuch as the decree was passed by learned Court of the Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi presently the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darrang, Mangaldoi (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”). 3. This Court has duly heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Mr. C. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as the decree in question has been put to execution which has been registered as Title Execution Case No. 08/1994, the learned Executing Court i.e. the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Darrang, Mangaldoi could have rectified the said mistake in the decree of inserting the correct patta number in exercise of the powers under Section 47 of the Code. 5. Per contra, Ms. D. Devi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that there is no decree in accordance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code, taking into account that no decree was drawn up in accordance with law. She therefore, submitted that the question of going ahead with the execution proceedings does not arise. In addition to that, the learned counsel further submitted that the learned Trial Court had committed no error inasmuch as the said Court could not have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 152 of the Code to correct the decree dated 23.01.1982 which was made by the learned Appellate Court. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents. 7. For the purpose of adjudication, this Court finds it relevant to take note of that the petitioner herein had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 23/1977 against the respondents herein seeking a decree for declaration of right, title and interest in respect to the land described in Schedule ‘Ka’ and the house situated therein described in Schedule ‘Kha’; for khas possession in favour of the plaintiff over the Schedule ‘Ka’ land and the vacant possession in respect to the Schedule ‘Kha’ house thereby ousting the main defendants and their family members; decree for khas possession in respect to the Schedule ‘Ka’ land thereby demolishing the house in Schedule ‘Ga’ as well as any other house constructed by the defendants and for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiff had duly described the schedules and it is pertinent herein to mention that the periodic patta mentioned in the plaint was Periodic Patta No. 39. The said suit was decreed by the learned Court of Civil Judge, Mangaldoi at Darrang vide the judgment and decree dated 23.01.1982. An appeal thereagainst was filed before the learned Court of the District Judge, Darang Mangaldoi. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside by the learned court of the Additional District Judge vide the order dated 17.03.1994 and the suit was again remanded back to the learned Trial Court. 8. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court changed in the meantime on account of the amendment to The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. The suit being Title Suit No. 23/1977 was transferred to the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Darrang. The said suit thereupon was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2001. Being aggrieved, the petitioner herein as plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No. 04/2002. The learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.06.2006 (the decree prepared on 04.07.2006) decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner. It is relevant to observe the contents of the decree prepared on 04.07.2006 and the same is reproduced herein below. The learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.06.2006 (the decree prepared on 04.07.2006) decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner. It is relevant to observe the contents of the decree prepared on 04.07.2006 and the same is reproduced herein below. “Appeal is allowed with costs. The plaintiff’s suit is decreed as prayed for in the plaint with costs. The impugned judgment of the trial court is set aside.” 9. This Court, at this stage finds it relevant to take note of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code which stipulates that the judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state amongst others where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled to. As would be seen from the above, the learned First Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and further observed that the plaintiff suit is decreed as prayed for in the plaint with costs, meaning thereby that all the reliefs claimed in the suit by the plaintiff was allowed. 10. It is further relevant to take note of that against the said judgment and decree dated 30.06.2006 passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.4/2002, an appeal was preferred before this Court under Section 100 of the Code by the respondents herein which was registered and numbered as RSA/140/2007. This Court by its judgment and decree dated 21.04.2023, dismissed the said Second Appeal being RSA No.140/2007, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2006 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 11. Be that as it may, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner herein has filed an execution proceedings being Title Execution Case No. 8/1994 on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 23.01.1982 initially passed by the Trial Court. Taking into account, the subsequent events, the execution proceedings ought to have proceeded in terms with the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2006 passed in Title Appeal No.4/2002, which was confirmed by this Court but on a misconceived notion, the learned Trial Court which is also the learned Executing Court was proceeding for execution of the decree dated 23.01.1982. Taking into account, the subsequent events, the execution proceedings ought to have proceeded in terms with the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2006 passed in Title Appeal No.4/2002, which was confirmed by this Court but on a misconceived notion, the learned Trial Court which is also the learned Executing Court was proceeding for execution of the decree dated 23.01.1982. The petitioner also on such misconceived notion sought for correctness of the decree dated 23.01.1982 and the judgment debtor had also raised objection as regards the executability of the decree taking into consideration that the decree sought to be executed was the decree dated 23.01.1982 wherein, in the decree so prepared the patta number was mentioned as Patta No.3 and not Patta No.39. On account of the above, the present proceedings are before this court. 12. This Court in the foregoing paragraphs had observed what was the decree passed by the First Appellate Court vide the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2006 (Decree prepared on 04.07.2006) in Title Appeal No.4/2002. By the said decree, the learned First Appellate Court granted all the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff. Therefore the learned Executing Court has to execute the Decree prepared on 04.07.2006. 13. This Court now finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Singh and Another Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad and Another reported in (2003) 2 SCC 330 and more particularly, the observations so made at Paragraph No. 17 of the said judgment whereby the Supreme Court categorically observed that when in a suit as regards immovable property is decreed, any corrections so required in view of overlooking the provisions of Order VII Rule 3 or Order XX Rule 3 of the Code is capable of being cured on the ground that a successful plaintiff should not be deprived of the fruits of the decree. This Court further finds it very pertinent to take note of the observations that in terms with Section 47 of the Code, the Executing Court which has the power to deal with questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree can do the needful to give effect to the decree. Paragraph 17 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow. 17. Paragraph 17 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow. 17. When the suit as to immovable propy has been decreed and the property is not definitely identified, the defect in the court record caused by overlooking of provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 3 and Order 20 Rule 3 CPC is capable of being cured. After all a successful plaintiff should not be deprived of the fruits of decree. Resort can be had to Section 152 or Section 47 CPC depending on the facts and circumstances of each case — which of the two provisions would be more appropriate, just and convenient to invoke. Being an inadvertent error, not affecting the merits of the case, it may be corrected under Section 152 CPC by the court which passed the decree by supplying the omission. Alternatively, the exact description of decretal property may be ascertained by the executing court as a question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree within the meaning of Section 47 CPC. A decree of a competent court should not, as far as practicable, be allowed to be defeated on account of an accidental slip or omission. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we think it would be more appropriate to invoke Section 47 CPC. 14. Taking into account that the learned First Appellate Court has passed the decree thereby allowing all the reliefs as claimed for in the suit, it is the opinion of this Court that the learned Executing Court i.e. the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Darrang, Mangaldoi on the basis thereof can very well execute the decree in respect to all the reliefs as have been claimed in the suit. 15. Considering the above, the instant proceedings stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The filing of the application under Section 152 of the Code for correction of the decree dated 23.01.1982 in Title Suit No. 23/1977 was misconceived taking into account that when the said decree is not in existence, the question of seeking rectification or correction of the contents of the said decree does not arise. (ii) The learned Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Darrang, Mangaldoi who is also the learned Executing Court shall proceed with the execution of Title Execution Case No. 08/1994 by executing the decree in terms with the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court dated 30.06.2006 (decree prepared on 04.07.2006). The learned Executing Court shall, if necessary, exercise the powers of section 47 of the Code to give full effect to the decree so passed. (iii) Taking into account the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Periyammal (Dead) though LRS & Ors Vs. V. Rajamani & Anr reported in 2025 SCC Online SL 507 , the learned Executing Court shall make all endeavours to complete the execution proceedings within 6 months. Paragraph 75 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: “75. In view of the aforesaid, we direct all the High Courts across the country to call for the necessary information from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution petitions. Once the data is collected by each of the High Courts, the High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an administrative order or circular, directing their respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and disposed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side. Once the entire data along with the figures of pendency and disposal thereafter, is collected by all the High Courts, the same shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court with individual reports. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs.