Sl.32 02.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 2809 of 2026 Rafiuddin Sk. -versus- Subhash Mondal & Ors. Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee Mr. Biswajit Sarkar ..for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the decree holder and is directed against an order dated 15th July, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lalbagh, Murshidaband in Title Execution Case No. 1 of 2025 arising out of Title Suit No. 93 of 2017. By the order impugned the execution case was dropped upon holding that the same is not maintainable. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that the petitioner obtained a decree in his favour and put the decree into execution but the learned judge of the executing court without considering the scope of the decree rejected the same on the ground that it is not maintainable. After going through the judgement and decree dated 11th July, 2024 this Court finds that the learned trial judge passed a decree for declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/opposite 2 parties from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. However, from the tabular statement filed by the petitioner before the executing court it appears that the petitioner sought for recovery of possession of the decreetal property by evicting the opposite parties there from. The learned judge of the executing court rightly observed that no decree for recovery of possession was passed in favour of the petitioner. The learned judge of the executing court was justified in holding that if the plaintiff was dispossessed from the decreetal property after passing of the judgement that gives rise to a fresh cause of action and the defendants/opposite parties cannot be evicted by executing the decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The learned judge of the executing court assigned cogent reasons for holding the execution case has not maintainable. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such order. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from taking appropriate steps before the appropriate forum in accordance with law as may be advised. Accordingly, C.O. 2809 of 2026 stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 3 Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)