Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN
Doloo Tea Co. (India) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Manish Tea Company, represented by its sole proprietor Shri Binod Kumar Bengani, S/o. Shri Budhmal Bengani – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. P. Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. J.C. Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. In this civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 09.08.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.08.2024, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Executing Court’) has dismissed the petition filed under Section 47 of the CPC.
3. The background facts leading to filing of the present revision petition is briefly stated as under:-
“The respondent/decree holder had filed a summary suit against the petitioner/judgment debtor No.1 herein, and against the Ambalal Properties & Investments (judgment debtor No.2) for recovery of a sum of Rs.54,98,800/-. The said suit is based on an agreement entered into by the respondent and the judgment debtor No.2. In the said summary suit, the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, vide order dated 23.12.2005 had decreed the suit ex-parte,
The executing court cannot go behind the decree unless it is a nullity, and re-agitating objections already dismissed in a previous petition would amount to an abuse of process of law.
The court emphasized that a petitioner must act with diligence and clean hands when invoking Article 227, especially when challenging an ex-parte decree after an unreasonable delay.
An execution petition cannot contest the merits of a decree when jurisdiction was previously established, reaffirming that challenges must focus on inherent jurisdictional defects.
The court emphasized the limited grounds on which a decree is unexecutable and highlighted that the right of the Decree Holder to obtain relief is determined in accordance with the terms of the decre....
The executing court has the jurisdiction and power to decide all questions relating to execution, discharge, and satisfaction of the decree under Section 47 CPC. However, the court must consider all ....
Decrees against societies must adhere to statutory requirements for valid legal representation; non-compliance renders the decree inexecutable.
An irregular judgment cannot be deemed a nullity and contested in execution; it must be challenged through proper legal channels, affirming that only decrees lacking inherent jurisdiction are non-exe....
The court ruled that a decree against a Society is inexecutable due to non-compliance with mandatory representation provisions, and strict adherence to procedural rules under CPC is necessary for exe....
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
