Execution is valid where possession is delivered over the property precisely described in the decree.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 21 August 2023 passed by the Munsif-IV, Saran at Chapra, in Misc. Case No. 26 of 2019.

The court below dismissed the petitioner’s application seeking admission of the miscellaneous case, holding that he had no locus standi to resist delivery of possession in favour of the decree-holder, and directed continuation of Execution Case No. 07 of 2022 arising from Eviction Suit No. 04 of 1999.

During the proceedings before the High Court, a report was called from the executing court regarding execution of the decree and the property over which possession had been delivered.

The executing court reported that possession had been delivered to the decree-holder on 27 October 2024 over land comprised in Khata No. 215, Survey No. 1121, measuring 6 Khattha and 4 Dhurr, with specified boundaries.

Whether the petitioner could maintain a challenge to the execution and delivery of possession in favour of the decree-holder despite the executing court’s finding that he had no locus standi to resist such delivery.

Whether the decree had been executed over the actual suit property described in the eviction decree, or whether any discrepancy or illegality existed in the delivery of possession.

Whether the order dated 21 August 2023 dismissing the petitioner’s miscellaneous application was illegal or improper and required interference by the High Court.

The Court applied the settled principle that execution proceedings must conform to the terms and description of the decree, and that interference is unwarranted where the executing court has delivered possession over the property specifically identified in the plaint and decree.

The Court also applied the principle governing supervisory interference that an executing court’s order should not be disturbed in the absence of illegality, impropriety, or a material discrepancy in execution.

The High Court examined the executing court’s report, particularly its description of the property by khata number, survey number, area, and boundaries.

It compared that description with the property mentioned in the eviction suit and decree and found that they “perfectly tally[ed]”.

Since possession had been delivered over the actual decretal property, the Court found no anomaly or illegality in the execution process.

Consequently, the petitioner’s objection to execution did not warrant interference, and the finding that he lacked locus standi to resist delivery of possession was not disturbed.

The impugned order was affirmed, Civil Miscellaneous No. 1202 of 2023 was dismissed, and the interim stay granted on 27 January 2025 was vacated.