Execution proceedings cannot be thwarted by repetitive, frivolous objections regarding property identity or technicalities when a decree has attained finality. Courts must actively prevent the abuse of the judicial system that denies successful litigants the legitimate fruits of their decrees.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. S Sahu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. NC Das, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M Devi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) challenging the order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Title Execution Case No.05/2019 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Naharkatia, Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the learned Executing Court’).

3. For the purpose of deciding, as to whether, this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction in respect to the impugned order dated 12.12.2024, it is relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings.

4. The respondent No. 2 herein had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 23/1975 against the grandfather of the petitioner, who was one Tankeshwar Dowerah (since deceased). The case of the respondent No. 2 in the said suit was that the respondent No. 2 was the owner of the quarter situated at Old Staff Line at Naharkatia Tea Estate which was given to Late Tankeshwar Dowerah as an incidence of his service. Subsequent to his retirement, late Tankeshwar Dowerah did not vacate the suit premises for which a notice was issued on 06.03.1974 asking him to quit, vacate, deliver vacant possession of the quarter on the expiry of 31.03.1974. Late Tankeshwar Dowerah, however, did not vacate the quarter and it is under such circumstances the suit was filed being Title Suit No.73/1975 for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendant and his dependents therefrom and for costs of the suit. The said suit thereupon was decreed in favour of the respondent No. 2 by the learned Trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 19.08.1994. It is very pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the suit, Late Tankeshwar Dowerah expired and he was substituted by his wife namely, one Maichana Dowerah (Who had also expired in the meantime).

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.08.1994 passed in Title Suit No. 23/1975 the said Late Maichana Dowerah, who was the grandmother of the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No. 15/1994. The said appeal was dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated 31.05.1995.

6. Being aggrieved, a second appeal was preferred by Late Maichana Dowerah before this Court which was registered and numbered as RSA No.128/1995 and the same was also dismissed on 31.10.2000.

7. Upon the dismissal of the said Second Appeal, an execution application was filed on 16.06.2011 which was registered and numbered as Title Execution Case No.11/2011. It is relevant to take note of that after the filing of the said execution application in the year 2011, the petitioner filed a suit in the year 2012, which was registered as Title Suit No. 49/2012 seeking a declaration that the decree obtained by the respondents herein was null and void, illegal, inoperative and unexecutable due to fraud and misrepresentation and the respondents herein had n