CRP 88/2013. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | CRP 88/2013 |
| Judgement Date | August 18, 2019 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRINCIPAL SEAT
CRP No. 88/2013
Sri Soneswar Roy @ Sontosh Roy,
………. Petitioner /Defendant
-VERSUS -Sri Tikendra Nath Das.
…..….… Respondent/ Plaintiff
Advocate for the Petitiner: Mr. AK Hussain, Adv.
……. Advocate.
Advocate for the Respondent Mr. SS Sarma, Sr. Adv,
Mr. BK Mukherjee,
………... Advocates.
- B E F O R E –
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA
Date of hearing : 18.08.2017
Date of judgment & order : 18.08.2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER ( Oral)
Heard Mr. AK Hussain, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner/ defendant and Mr. SS Sharma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. BJ Mukherjee, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent/ plaintiff.
2] I n this application, the order dated 1.2.2013, passed in Title Execution Case No. 2/ 2012 pending in the court of the learned Munsiff at Bijni is challenged. I t is submitted that the present petitioner is the judgment-debtor in the decree passed in favour of the respondent-decree-holder in Title Suit No. 15/ 2001 by the learned court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijni. The said suit was decreed for declaration of right, title, interest and eviction and khas possession over the suit land which is 1 (one) Khata 15 (fiteen) Lechas of land described more fully in the schedule “B” in the decree drawn on 4th January, 2003 by the said court of the learned Civil Judge, Bijni.
3] The execution proceeding was initiated by the respondent- decree-holder and on 17.5.2007, the said execution proceeding was dismissed for non-taking of steps by the decreeholder-respondent. An application thereafter was filed under Order 9 of the CPC to restore the said execution proceeding and the said petition was also dismissed vide order dated 24.7.2007, passed by the learned Executing Court. A fresh execution proceeding bearing T.S. No. 3/ 2007 was again initiated. I n the said proceeding, the decree-holder refused to accept the decreetal land and as such the Nazir was orally examined by the Executing Court.
4] The Executing Court thereafter vide order dated
20.3.2009 was satisfied to accept the report of the Nazir wherein on oral examination of the Nazir, the court came to the satisfaction that Lat Mandal was present during the execution process and the decree- holder failed to comply in accepting the decreetal land when delivered by the Nazir and identified by the Lat Mandal, and as such the executing court...
To continue reading
Request your trial