Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Brajendranathkutum – Petitioner
Versus
Bis Wes Wari Patir – Respondent
CRP (I/O) Nos. 3, 6, 69 of 2021
Decided On : 14-12-2021
Limitation Act, 1963, Sections 3, 4 to 24 and Article 136 – Condonation of delay – Sake of convenience – Fact of the instant cases is that the father of the plaintiff-decree-holder instituted a suit in the court of learned Assistant District Judge, which was registered and numbered as TS with the prayers which, for the sake of convenience, are quoted – Held, As has already been observed hereinabove, this court vide order, had directed for drawing up a decree, but while doing so, did not take into consideration that the judgment available with the plaintiff was an unauthenticated and unsigned typed copy of the judgment and on the basis of the said order, the decree has been prepared – Under such circumstances, as the executing court is in-charge of execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree and it has the power, under section 47, to go into such question as to whether the said decree is at all executable inasmuch as the said decree has been prepared on the basis of unauthenticated, unsigned typed copy of the judgment, Court therefore, of the opinion that the order, whereupon the executing court set up the summary inquiry proceeding to enquire as regards the authenticity of the unsigned typed copy of the judgment produced by the plaintiff was fully justified – It is also observed that the contention that the decree having been prepared on the basis of directions passed by this court in WP(C) cannot be called in question, in my opinion, would not be a correct proposition inasmuch as this court while passing the order had directed the decree to be drawn up on the basis of judgment and order, but not on the basis of unauthenticated, unsigned typed copy of the judgment produced by the plaintiff – Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. G. Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in CRP(I/O) No. 3/2021. The said counsels also appear for the respondent in CRP(I/O) No. 6/2021 and CRP(I/O) No. 69/2021. I have also heard Mr. N.N. Karmakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in CRP(I/O) No. 6/2021 and CRP(I/O) No. 69/2021, who also appears on behalf of the respondent in CRP(VO) No. 3/2021.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the instant proceedings are referred to in the same status as they stood in the suit.
3. All the three revision applications are taken up together for final disposal as the they relate to the same subject-matter.
4. The brief fact of the instant cases is that the father of the plaintiff-decree-holder instituted a suit in the court of learned Assistant District Judge, Guwahati, which was registered and numbered as TS No. 35/1991 with the prayers which, for the sake of convenience, are quoted herein-below:
(b) A decree of confirmation of possession that the plaintiff has Khas possession over the suit land fully described in Schedule BB of the plaint be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants;
(c) A decree that the registered Sale Deed Nos. 11684 and No. 11685 dated 12.12.1985 are obtained by fraud and as such they are void, illegal and inoperative and are cancelled, be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants;
(d) A decree for recovery of possession that the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant No. 1 removing the structure of Tin Chali from the part of the suit land fully described in Schedule ‘C of the plaintiff;
(e) A decree of permanent injuction restraining the defendant No. 1, his agents and men from causing any interferences with and/or disturbances to the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land fully described in Schedule ‘B’ of the plaint, be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant No. 1, pending final disposal of the suit, an ad-interim injunction be granted to the plaintiff as prayed for;
(f) Costs of the suit be awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant No. 1;
(g) Any such other and further relief or further reliefs as this hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, be awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.”
5. Perusal of the plaint, enclosed as Annexure-1 to CRP(I/O) No. 3/2021, would go to show that the plaint had three schedules marked as Schedule-A, Schedule-B and Schedule-C. The said schedules are quoted herein-below, for the sake of convenience:
A plot measuring 4 Bighas, 2 Kathas, 10 Lechas covered by Dag No. 1187 of K.P. Patta No. Ill of village Japorigog under Mouza Beltola within the urban area of Guwahati in the District of Kamrup, Assam.
SCHEDULE ‘B’
A plot measuring 2 Kathas, 7 Lechas out of the land described in Schedule ‘A’ covered by Dag No. 1187 of K.P. Patta No. III of village Japorigog under Mouza Beitoia within the urban area of Guwahati in the District of Kamrup, Assam and bounded by-
North - Land of Prafuiia Thakuria and Rambrij Chauhan,
South- Bhola Kachani
East - Tilak Kutum and
West - Puspa Deb and others.
SCHEDULE ‘C’
A part of the land described in Schedule ‘B’ above of this plaint wherefrom the plaintiff has been forcibly dispossessed and a tin chali has been constructed therein by the defendant No. 1.”
6. During pendency of the said suit, the original plaintiff, i.e., the father of the decree-holder expired and the decree-holder along with her brothers and sisters were substituted as the plaintiffs in the said suit. The said suit was decree
The period for executing a decree runs from the date of the appellate decree, even when there is an appeal regarding part of the decree.
Limitation for executing compromise decrees begins upon breach of obligations, not from the decree date.
The execution of an ex parte decree is not barred by limitation if the decree has merged with a revisional order, resetting the limitation period for enforcement.
The court affirmed that a decree holder's rights must be enforced despite repeated technical objections from judgment debtors, underscoring the importance of expeditious justice in civil matters.
A second execution petition filed after the limitation period is barred, and withdrawal of an earlier execution does not extend the limitation period.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
