Decided on June 06,1994

Rajendra Nath Kalita Respondents


D.N. Baruah, J. - (1.)THIS Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.7.93 passed by the 2nd Assistant District Judge, Guwahati in Money Execution Case No. 32/62 dismissing the case. It is really sad that the litigation in respect of execution of a decree passed on 11.8.61 in Money Suit No. 37/60 has been prolonged for such a long lime.
(2.)PETITIONER filed an Execution case (Money Execution Case No. 32/62) in the Court of the Sub Judge, Nagaon (as was it then). This case was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Sub -Judge Guwahati fox execution of the said decree in respect of an area of land measuring 13 1/2 Lechas situated at Sahar Guwahati, Block No. 2, Fancy Bazar. The said land was purchased by the Petitioner in an auction sale. Thereafter, the judgment debtor (opposite party) resisted the decree by filing Annexure -C objection, stating, inter alia that he did not know about filing of the execution case and therefore, prayed for two months' time to take necessary steps before delivery of possession of the land to the decree -holder (Petitioner) by demolishing the structures standing thereon,
That Assistant District Judge, No. 2, by order dated 2.3.84 rejected the prayer with cost and directed Nazir to execute the decree. Again another application was filed under Order 21, Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 by some persons claiming to be the tenants before the 2nd Assistant District Judge. This petition was also dismissed by the Court.

(3.)BEING aggrieved, the opposite party moved this Court by filing a revision (Civil Revision No. 394/88). This Court found no jurisdictional error in passing the order and accordingly rejected the petition. Thereafter, again attempts were made to resist the execution of the decree by filing various applications and ultimately the Assistant District Judge by order dated 16.7.91 rejected the prayer and directed the Lat Mandal for ascertaining the actual position of the land. Against that order also a revision (Civil Revision No. 241/91) was filed by the opposite party contending that the Petitioner on the strength of the decree was going to lake some land other than the decretal land and if the writ was executed by Nazir, the opposite party (JD) would suffer irreparable loss and great hardships would be caused to him. This Court once again dismissed the said revision by judgment and order dated 28.8.92.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.