Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
Siraj Khan S/O Late Refat Khan – Appellant
Versus
Hari Prasad Agarwal Proprietor, Assam Udyog Company Having – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel representing the sole respondent.
2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh in Title Execution Case No.04/2016.
3. The respondent is the decree holder in respect of T.S. 206/2007. He filed the suit against the present petitioner for his eviction from the tenanted premises. The tenanted premises was described as a four room RCC house with concrete roof on the first floor of the building of Assam Udyog Company.
4. Vide Title Execution Case No.04/2016 , the decree was executed. The Civil Nazir handed over the vacant possession of the four rooms to the respondent.
5. Thereafter, on 10.01.2020, the respondent filed an application before the Executing Court stating that the present petitioner being the judgment debtor, though was given four rooms on rent, had erected partitions and converted the four rooms into six rooms. The decree holder also submitted before the court that the judgment debtor was also occupying two other room
A court decree remains enforceable unless set aside, affirming ongoing jurisdiction for execution even post initial enforcement.
Words “any person” is wide enough to include even a person not bound by a decree claiming right in the property on his own including that of a tenant not party to suit or even a stranger.
Order 21 Rue 23 deals with the procedure to be followed after getting notice under Order 21 Rule 22.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Order XXI Rule 29 of the CPC to the facts of the case and the emphasis on the lawful decree passed in favor of the responde....
Objection to execution of decree – Even if Executing Court cannot go behind decree, it does not mean that it has no duty to find out true effect of that decree.
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.
An executing court cannot question the merits of a decree; objections to execution must be based on jurisdictional issues or invalidity, not merit. Res judicata bars successive objections.
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
