IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No.9 of 2025 1. Saba Tarannum, aged about 34 years, 2. Neha Tarannum, aged about 32 years Both 1 and 2 are Daughters of Late Nesar Khan, 3. Md. Amir, aged about 34 years, son of Late nesar Khan, 4. Shakil Khan, son of Late Rahman, aged about 60 years, All 1 – 4 are residents of Kali Asthan road, Gudri Chowk, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Lower Bazar, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. …… Petitioners Versus 1. Afsari Khatoon, 2. Kausar Khatoon Both 1 and 2 are wife(s) of Late Ali Asgar Hussain, Resident of Pandra, P.O. - Hehal, P.S. - Sukhdeo Nagar, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. …... Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate Mr. Danish Shahbaz, Advocate Md. Farhan Kibriya, Advocate Mr. Haroon Rasheed, Advocate For the O.Ps. : -------- 02/Dated: 07 th March, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists. 2. The present civil revision application has been filed against the order dated 18.09.2024, passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) – II, Ranchi in MCA No.188 of 2024, arising out of Execution Case No.31 of 2024, whereby the court below has rejected the petition filed by the revisionists under Section 47 C.P.C. 3. It appears that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs regarding the suit land bearing Khata No.59, M.S. Plot No.583, Area 620 Sq.Ft., situated at Village Konka, P.S. - Lower Bazar, Thana No.198, District - Ranchi, claiming the title and recovery of possession and that has been decreed in Title Suit No.177 of 2008. Statement has been given that the defendants have lost up to the appellate court although the number of the appeal has not been disclosed. Thus, it has been accepted by the - 1 - C.R. No.9 of 2025 defendants/ revisionists that the decree passed in Title Suit No.177 of 2008 has attained finality. 4. It further appears that for execution of the decree, a petition has been filed which has been numbered as Execution Case No.31 of 2024. An objection has been raised by the judgment debtors that there was no description of boundary and as such the decree is inexecutable. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the revisionists and from perusal of the record, it appears that the decree is clear and specific as the plot number, khata number and area is clear. It has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that he has no concern so far as the above plot as mentioned in the decree is concerned. The revisionists are only concerned with the Plot No.582, which is not the subject matter of the decree. 6. Thus, the execution is not going to disturb the right, title, interest and possession of the objectors, who happen to be the judgment debtors. Once their right is not getting effected, they cannot object so far as the execution proceeding is concerned. This Court finds that otherwise also, the identification of land is clear regarding which the decree has been passed. Further, it is settled principle of law that the executing court has to execute the decree as it is. 7. In view of above discussions, I find no reason to entertain the present civil revision application. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed. 8. I.A. No.2188 of 2025 which has been filed for condonation of delay in preferring the present civil revision, also stands dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Ravi-Chandan/- - 2 - C.R. No.9 of 2025