JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. C. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. D. Devi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court by challenging the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in Misc(J) Case No. 70/2023 by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Darrang, Mangaldoi (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”). It is seen that vide the order dated 18.12.2024 the application so filed by the petitioner under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) was rejected on the ground that the learned Trial Court could not have made correction to the decree dated 23.01.1982 inasmuch as the decree was passed by learned Court of the Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi presently the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darrang, Mangaldoi (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”).

3. This Court has duly heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Mr. C. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as the decree in question has been put to execution which has been registered as Title Execution Case No. 08/1994, the learned Executing Court i.e. the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Darrang, Mangaldoi could have rectified the said mistake in the decree of inserting the correct patta number in exercise of the powers under Section 47 of the Code.

5. Per contra, Ms. D. Devi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that there is no decree in accordance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code, taking into account that no decree was drawn up in accordance with law. She therefore, submitted that the question of going ahead with the execution proceedings does not arise. In addition to that, the learned counsel further submitted that the learned Trial Court had committed no error inasmuch as the said Court could not have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 152 of the Code to correct the decree dated 23.01.1982 which was made by the learned Appellate Court.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents.

7. For the purpose of adjudication, this Court finds it relevant to take note of that the petitioner herein had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 23/1977 against the respondents herein seeking a decree for declaration of right, title and interest in respect to the land described in Schedule ‘Ka’ and the house situated therein described in Schedule ‘Kha’; for khas possession in favour of the plaintiff over the Schedule ‘Ka’ land and the vacant possession in respect to the Schedule ‘Kha’ house thereby ousting the main defendants and their family members; decree for khas possession in respect to the Schedule ‘Ka’ land thereby demolishing the house in Schedule ‘Ga’ as well as any other house constructed by the defendants and for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiff had duly described the schedules and it is pertinent herein to mention that the periodic patta mentioned in the plaint was Periodic Patta No. 39. The said suit was decreed by the learned Court of Civil Judge, Mangaldoi at Darrang vide the judgment and decree dated 23.01.1982. An appeal thereagainst was filed before the learned Court of the District Judge, Darang Mangaldoi. The judgment and decree passed by the learned