Point of Law: Words “any person” is wide enough to include even a person not bound by a decree claiming right in the property on his own including that of a tenant not party to suit or even a stranger.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mrs. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. P. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.06.2016 passed in Title Execution Case No.30/2015 arising out of Title Suit No.195/2009.

3. The brief facts of the instant case is that the Respondent No.4 as Plaintiff had filed a suit against the Respondent No.3 for eviction. The said suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.195/2009. Vide a judgment and decree dated 07.07.2011 the said suit being Title Suit No.195/2009 was decreed. Against that, an appeal was preferred by the Respondent No.3 herein which was also dismissed. Subsequent thereto, a revision application was also filed before this Court which was also dismissed.

4. Thereupon, an execution application was filed by the Respondent No.4 herein before the Court of Munsiff No.1, Dhubri which was registered and numbered as Title Execution Case No.30/2015.

5. In the said proceedings, an application was filed by the Petitioner herein for stay of the proceedings in Title Execution Case No.30/2015. A perusal of the said petition reveals that the Petitioner herein claimed to be in possession the suit land which was the subject matter of Title Suit No.195/2009 for the last 25 years. It is the specific case of the Petitioner in the said application that the Respondent No.4 fraudulently filed Title Suit No.195/2009 against the Respondent No.3 who was not at all in possession of the suit land and illegally obtained the decree on 07.07.2011 without making the Petitioner as a party to the said suit. It was further mentioned that the said decree in Title Suit No.195/2009 was not binding upon the Petitioner. Further to that, it was mentioned that the Petitioner on coming to learn about the decree in Title Suit No.195/2009 from the decree holder i.e. the Respondent No.4 filed a suit before the Court of the Munsiff No.1, Dhubri which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.82/16 alongwith a Misc. (J) Case No.32/16 for injunction restraining the decree holder from evicting the Petitioner and his family members. It is under such circumstances a stay was sought for in respect to the execution proceedings.

6. Pursuant to the said application, the Petitioner had filed an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. praying for calling present actual possession report and the status of the decreetal land from the Circle Officer, Dhubri Circle, Dhubri for proper adjudication of the petition filed by the petitioner.

7. A conjoint reading of both the applications filed by the Petitioner herein shows that the Petitioner had resisted the delivery of possession in pursuant to the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Title Suit No.195/2009 on the ground that the Petitioner had a possessory right over the decreetal land being in possession for the last 25 years. In both the applications the decree holder i.e. the Respondent No.4 has filed objections. In the meantime, while the said applications were pending, an application was filed under Order I Rule 8A read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. by the Government pleader through the Deputy Commissioner stating inter alia that the land in respect to which the decree was passed, was a Government land and as such the State Authority is required to be impleaded as an Opposite Party to the execution proceedings.

8. Be that as it may, the Executing Court took up all the petitions together and vide the order dated 07.06.2016, rejected each of the applications. It is pertinent herein to mention that the application filed by the State of Assam was rejected as not maintainable as the decree can be executed in absence of the State of Assam and the suit was not with regard to title. The said order however has not been put to challenge by the State Authority.

9. The petitions filed by the Petitioner which were Petition Nos. 60