The execution of a non-existent decree violates judicial principles, requiring courts to act within their jurisdiction per civil procedure rules.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. MU Mahmud, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. AK Sahewalla, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The present proceedings have been initiated challenging the order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Titabar, Jorhat (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Executing Court”) whereby the Petition No. 596/2024 filed in Misc (J) Case No. 02/2015 was rejected.

3. Before taking up the issue as regards the impugned order in the instant proceedings, it is relevant to take note of that this Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction in terms with Article 227 of the Constitution of India over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories within which this Court exercises jurisdiction.

4. The proceedings being Misc (J) Case No. 02/2015 is challenged in the present proceedings. It is relevant to take note of that Misc (J) Case No. 02/2015 is an application filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) by the respondents herein before the learned Executing Court questioning the authority of the learned Executing Court to execute the decree on the ground that there was no decree which could have been put to execution. Taking into account the said aspect, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which have led to the filing of the said application being Misc (J) Case No. 02/2015.

5. The predecessor of the respondents herein filed a suit being Title Suit No. 13/1985 against the predecessor of the present petitioners, one Sonalal Kalwar and 7 (seven) others. The said suit so filed by the predecessor of the respondents herein was seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for recovery of possession by evicting the defendants therefrom. The suit being Title Suit No. 13/1985 was dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1996.

6. Being aggrieved, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents preferred an Appeal which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No. 02/1997 before the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jorhat (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”). The said Appeal so filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was allowed vide the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2000 thereby, the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was decreed.

7. A Second Appeal thereagainst was filed by the present petitioners before this Court which was registered and numbered as RSA No. 15/2001. The judgment and decree dated 01.09.2000 passed in Title Appeal No. 02/1997 by the learned First Appellate Court was interfered with by this Court vide an order dated 11.06.2013 and the Appeal was remanded back to the learned First Appellate Court for deciding afresh the Appeal by taking into consideration the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code.

8. The Appeal thereupon post remand was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2013. A decree thereupon was prepared on 16.12.2013 in the said Appeal categorically mentioning that “The appeal is dismissed on contest with costs”.

9. The record further reveals that on 28.01.2014, the petitioners herein filed an application seeking execution of the decree. The relief which was sought for in the said execution application