The court affirmed that a tenant's collusive attempts to nullify a lawful eviction decree are impermissible, emphasizing the need for judicial efficiency and discouraging frivolous litigation.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. B. D. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A. Sancheti, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This is a case where a tenant who had suffered a decree of ejectment in order to nullify the same, have resorted to all litigative acrobatics and the present one, through one of the joint decree holders.

3. The petitioner herein who was one of the joint decree holders had approached this Court challenging the order dated 06.02.2025 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) was dismissed by the learned Executing Court, i.e. the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bongaigaon as well as non-consideration of the application filed under Order XXI Rule 15 of the Code.

4. The present application is filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court rather than the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Others vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and Others, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 538, that when the Code provides a remedy, the High Court should not merely as a measure of self-imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline deter from exercising its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution.

5. It is also settled that when an application under Section 47 of the Code is rejected and more particularly when it challenges the Execution proceedings, the remedy available is under Section 115 of the Code. However, as the petitioner’s counsel inspite of being asked submitted that he would confine his case only under Article 227 of the Constitution, the present proceedings on this count alone is required to be dismissed.

6. Be that as it may, the present application being a collusive attempt to nullify a judgment and decree passed by this Court and in order to put at rest the objections so raised before the learned Executing Court, this Court finds it apt to deal with the merits.

7. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner along with the respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein filed a suit before the Court of the learned Munsiff at Bongaigaon which was registered as Title Suit No.2/2000 seeking eviction of the defendant, namely, M/s Bongaigaon Stores and its proprietor. The learned Trial Court, i.e. the Court of the Munsiff at Bongaigaon vide the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2010 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit upon arriving at a conclusion that the tenants/defendants were defaulters in payment of the rent as well as on bonafide requirement of the plaintiffs in respect to the suit premises. The defendants as appellants being aggrieved, preferred an Appeal before the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Bongaigaon which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.35/2010. The learned First Appellate Court vide the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2013, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2010. It is however relevant to note that the learned First Appellate Court interfered with the finding that the defendants/tenants were defaulters in payment of rent. However, on the aspect of bonafide requirement, the learned First Appellant Court affirmed the findings of the learned Trial Court and consequently upheld the decree of the learned Trial Court.

8. The defendants/tenants thereupon filed an application under Section 115 of the Code before this Court which was registered and numbered as CRP No.77/2014. This Court vide an order dated 03.11.2016, reversed the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court on the ground of non-compliance to the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code and remanded the matter back to the learned First Appellate Court for a fresh decision on the issues by discussing the evidence available on