GAHC010204452025 2026:GAU-AS:2892 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Review.Pet./245/2025 SATYENDRA DAS AND 3 ORS.

SON OF LATE JAGANNATH DAS

2: SANJAY DAS S/O. LT. JAGANNATH DAS

3: SAILENDRA DAS S/O. LT. JAGANNATH DAS

4: JOYMOTI DAS W/O. LT. JAGANNATH DAS ALL ARE R/O. SUNDARDIA KALAYA HATI BARPETA TOWN P/O. AND P/S. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 VERSUS PRATIMA BORO @ PRATIMA GOALA DAUGHTER OF LATE HARI GOALA, WIFE OF RAJEN BORO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JNATIGAON, MOUZA GOBARDHANA, DISTRICT-

BAKSA (BTAD), ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M RANA, MR. R K D CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MR P K BASU, MR. A BISWAS,MR R KALITA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

ORDER

Date : 25.02.2026 Heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This review petition, under Section 114 of the CPC, read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, is preferred by the review petitioners for review of the order dated 06.08.2025, passed by this Court in CRP(I/O) No. 108/2025.

3. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that the predecessor of the review petitioners had filed a title suit, being Title Suit No. 302/2013, before the learned Munsiff, Barpeta, and in the said title suit, the original defendant, namely, Hari Goala had filed his written statement-cum- counter claim. Mr. Choudhury also submits that during the pendency of the suit, the original defendant died and his legal heirs were substituted in his place, and the said legal heirs of the defendant did not appear before the Court even after getting notice, for which the suit proceeded ex-parte and the suit was decreed, vide by ex-parte judgment and decree dated 23.10.2017. Mr. Choudhury further submits thereafter, the review petitioners had filed Title Execution Case No. 05/2018, and then the respondents filed Misc. (J) Case No.53/2018, under Order 9 Rule 13 and Order 1 Rule 10(2), read with Section 151 of the CPC to add her as a defendant, but the same was dismissed, vide order dated 24.10.2019. Mr. Choudhury also submits that against the said order dated 24.10.2019, the respondent preferred Misc. Appeal No.04/2019, before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baksa, but the same was also dismissed, vide order dated 16.07.2024. And thereafter, the respondent had filed Misc. (J)

Case No. 37/2024, under Order 21 Rule 97, 99 and 101 of the CPC, before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baksa in the execution proceeding. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the said Misc. (J) Case No.37/2024, was allowed by the Court below, vide order dated 05.02.2025, and against the said order dated 05.02.2025, the review petitioners have preferred a revision petition, being CRP(I/O) No.108/2025, before this Court. But, vide order under review dated 06.08.2025, this Court was pleased to dismiss the same.

3.1. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that though the respondent had filed Misc. (J) Case No. 37/2024, before the learned Court below, under Order 21 Rule 97, 99 and 101 of the CPC, but an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC can only be maintained by a holder of a decree, in view of the said provision and since the respondent herein is not the decree holder, she cannot maintain a petition under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. Mr. Choudhury, by referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajiv Trust and Anr., reported in (1998) 3 SCC 723, and also to another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd. vs. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust, reported in 2022 Supreme (SC) 694, submits that Order 21 Rule 97 CPC contemplates only the ‘decree holder’ who is entitled to make an application in case where he is offered resistance or obstruction by ‘any person’, and as such, the respondent herein c