The three civil revision petitions and one writ petition are based on a set of common basic facts and the reliefs claimed by the parties are also aimed at achieving the same object. Accordingly, all these four petitions have been heard together. They can be and are accordingly disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The three revision petitions have been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging various orders of the Executing Court in Title Execution No. 2/2014 of the Court of learned Additional District Judge at Dibrugarh. This title execution case was instituted by the decree holder (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DH’) of Title Suit No. 6/1983 of that court after the decree passed on 20.01.1995 by the trial court was upheld by the High Court and civil appeal preferred there-against by the judgment debtors (hereinafter referred to as ‘the JD’) before Supreme Court was dismissed.

3. Facts involved in the matter are stated in brief hereinafter. One Bhawani Shankar Bagaria, as plaintiff, had instituted aforesaid Title Suit No. 6/1983 in the court of learned Assistant District Judge at Dibrugarh stating that M/s Jokai (Assam) Tea Co. Ltd. had entered into an agreement for sale on 25.05.1970 agreeing to sell land measuring approximately 421.49 acres described in schedule to the agreement and subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein at a price of Rs. 450/- per acre. As per the agreement, the vendor received a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards earnest money. It was agreed that sale of the schedule land would be completed on resurvey of the area by the company and 45 days after handing over of vacant possession of the demised land to the purchaser. The sum of Rs. 5000/- received towards earnest money was supposed to have been adjusted against total consideration of Rs. 1,89,670/- at the time of completion of sale. Some of the terms and conditions of the contract were mentioned in the body of the plaint and the agreement in entirety was annexed as Annexure – A to the plaint. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 committed breach of the said agreement by refusing to sell and deliver to the plaintiff the demised land or any portion thereof notwithstanding repeated demands. It was, therefore, prayed that a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 25.05.1970 be passed directing the defendants to execute the sale deed on receipt of balance consideration. An alternative prayer was also made for realisation of Rs. 6,54,309.50 towards damages in lieu of specific performance in addition to refund of Rs. 5,000/- and an interest of Rs. 4,375/- thereon.

4. On being summoned, the defendants No. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. They raised plea of maintainability, want of cause of action, mis-joinder of parties, limitation etc. However, the facts relating to execution of agreement on 25.05.1970 and receipt of Rs. 5,000/- towards earnest money as alleged in the plaint were admitted. According to the defendants, they did not repudiate the agreement intentionally but it became impossible to fulfil the obligation due to supervening interruption of laws on enforcement of Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 as well as Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Admitting incorporation of defendant No. 2, it was stated that the agreement made by defendant No. 1 was not binding on defendant No. 2 and that the defendants are not liable to refund the earnest money of Rs. 5,000/-.

5. The learned Assistant District Judge upon consideration of the rival contentions of the parties framed as many as 14 issues and the same are quoted below:-

1. Whether the suit is maintainable?

2. Whether there is any cause of action?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of Jokai India Ltd.?

5. Whether the defendant No. 1 is also carrying on business in the Dibrugarh District?

6. Whether the plaintiff was and is still ready and willing to