The executing court is obligated to follow prior court directives strictly and cannot exceed its jurisdiction by issuing writs contrary to those directives.

JUDGMENT :

(DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.)

Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewallah, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Todi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. K. Sen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 who is also on caveat.

2. The manner in which the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Sribhumi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Executing Court’) have proceeded with the execution and dismissed the execution proceedings, this Court takes up the instant proceedings for disposal at the motion stage itself.

3. Taking into account that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have jointly filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) and the said application was filed on the basis of an affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, this Court finds no necessity of issuance of notice as the same would only delay the execution proceedings.

4. The materials on record shows that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide a judgment and order dated 17.05.2012 in RSA No.8/2001 confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karimganj in Title Appeal No.36/1998. However, in doing so, certain modifications were made as would be seen from paragraph No.17 of the judgment and order dated 17.05.2012 passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court. Paragraph No.17 of the said judgment is reproduced herein under:

“17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 declaring landholder’s right in respect of the part of the Schedule-1 land i.e. 1 powa 4 jasti 5 pan 5 gandas of land. The decree for recovery of khas possession in respect of the said land has also rightly been passed. Hence the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in that regard is affirmed. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below declaring the plaintiff No.1’s tenancy right over the Schedule-1 land apart from the decree passed for recovery of khas possession in respect of the land other than the land measuring 1 powa 4 jasti 5 pan and 5 gandas is set aside.”

5. From a perusal of the above quoted portion of the judgment and order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench, it is seen that the learned Coordinate Bench had held that the learned Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 declaring landholder’s right in respect of the part of the Schedule-1 land i.e. 1 powa 4 jasti 5 pon 5 gondas of land and further held that a decree for recovery of khas possession in respect of the said land had also rightly been passed. The learned Coordinate Bench further held that insofar as the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below declaring the plaintiff No.1’s tenancy right over the Schedule-1 land apart from the decree passed for recovery of khas possession in respect of the land other than the land measuring 1 powa 4 jasti 5 pon and 5 gondas was set aside.

6. Pursuant thereto, an execution proceedings was filed before the learned Executing Court which was registered and numbered as Title Execution Case No.2/2016 wherein execution was sought for recovery of khas possession of the land described in Schedule-2. Pursuant to the said execution application being filed, the judgment debtors Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application being Misc. Case No.164/2016 seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.293/1993 both by the learned Trial Court as well as by the Hon’ble Appellate Courts on the grounds and circumstances set-forth therein and dismiss the Title Execut