Amulya Kumar Nandi, J. - (1.) This revision is directed against Order No. 165 dated 31.8.89 passed by the Ld. Munsif, 4th court, Howrah in Misc. Case No. 45/84. Earlier in this Misc. Case the court had passed an order bearing No. 151 dated 29.4.88. By the said order the court disposed of an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the petitioner here. This court in C.O.No. 1112/88 held that the petitioners plea of non-service of notice under Or.21, Rule 16 of the code was not entertain-able. So, any plea with respect to that notice can no more be adjudicated by the executing court. By the said order N.K.Mitra, J.directed the court below to re-hear the objection under section 47 of the code. The court by the impugned Order No.165 dated 31.8.89 is said to have disposed of the application under section 47 of the Code. On perusal of the said order it would be found that the court really did not write out a Judgment afresh as she was required to do in terms of the order of N.K.Mitra, J. On the contrary, the Ld. Judge relied upon her earlier observation which was challenged in C.O.No. 1112/88.
(2.) Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the opposite party submits that the plea of the opposite parties are regards res-judicata of the execution case is no more tenable in view of the Judgment of S.K.Mookerjee, J. in C.O. No. 2964/86. I quite agree with Mr. Mukherjee that the opposite parties cannot raise the plea of res judicata any more. I do not get persuaded with the argument of Mr. Mukherjee that the question of identification was also decided by this court-finally. Mr. Mukherjee invites my attention to the order of Sukumar Chakraborty, J. in C.O. No. 1697/85. By the said order the Ld. Judge confirmed the Order No.50 dated 9.2.85 passed by the said executing court. By Order No.50 dated 9.2.85 the ; executing court refused to call for the record. In my opinion, the question of identification of the disputed property was not decided by the executing court and, therefore, C.O.No. 1697/85 did not answer the question as to identification.
(3.) Mr.Roy Choudhury contends that the present decree-holders had purchased only 10 rooms out of 14 rooms and that the decretal property cannot be identified locally. He means to say that in order to execute the decree the decree-holder has to satisfy that the decretal property is covered by the sale deeds obtained from the original decree-holder. This point does not seem to have been answered by the executing court. Mr. Mukherjee persuades me to answer the point here in revision. In revision I am not supposed to answer that question.;