Sl.18 22.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 3204 of 2026 Smt. Pratima Rani Pal & Ors. -versus- Shri Dilip Kumar Pal & Ors. Mr. Sukumar Ghosh Mr. Malay Roy Ms. Moumita Ghosh ..for the petitioners Mr. Anshuman Chakraborty Mr. Prasanta Bishal Mr. Sourav Bikash Jana ..for the opposite party nos. 1 to 10 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the judgement debtor and is directed against an order being no.39 dated 4th August, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in J. Misc. Case No. 53 of 2025 arising out of Title Execution Case No. 04 of 2024. By the order impugned the objection filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected. In a suit for partition the final decree has been passed. The final decree has been put into execution giving rise to Title Execution Case No. 4 of 2024. The petitioners filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure which stood rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved the petitioners have approached this Court. 2 The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession of the decreetal property and without any decree for recovery of khas possession and mandatory injunction the petitioners cannot be dispossessed. The suit for partition being Title Suit No. 151 of 1996 was decreed in preliminary form by a judgement and decree dated 29th January, 2008. The suit was decreed in preliminary form thereby declaring right, title and interest of the plaintiffs and the shares of the plaintiffs and other defendants excepting the defendant no.1 was declared. The parties were directed to make amicable partition of the suit land separating the plaintiff’s share and the defendant no.1 was restrained from causing any disturbance upon peaceful joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 2 to 5 till partition is effected. The petitioners are the heirs of the defendant no.1. Thus, the petitioners are bound by the directions contained in the preliminary decree. It is not in dispute that the suit was decreed in final form subsequently and the decree was put into execution. The learned Judge of the Executing Court rightly noted that the defendant no.1 has no right, title and interest in the suit property. The decree has already attained finality as the same has not been challenged before any superior forum. After going through the objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hearing the 3 submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties this Court finds that the petitioners sought to challenge the judgement and decree passed in the partition suit by filing an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge of the Executing Court was right in rejecting the application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, C.O. 3204 of 2026 stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)