Gauhati High Court
On The Death Of Karuna Kakati One Of His ... vs Chandra Kanta Kumbhakar on 25 March, 2022
Author: Hitesh Kumar Sarma
Bench: Hitesh Kumar Sarma
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010060612022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/34/2022
ON THE DEATH OF KARUNA KAKATI ONE OF HIS LEGAL HEIR RADHA
KAKOTI
S/O. LT. DOTO HALOI, VILL. PAIKAN BANMAJA, MOUZA- UTTAR
BARKHETRI, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-785640.
VERSUS
CHANDRA KANTA KUMBHAKAR
S/O. LT. BUDHI RAM KUMBHAKAR, VILL. PAIKAN BANMAJA, MOUZA-
UTTAR BARKHETRI, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-785640.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B P BORAH
Advocate for the Respondent : MR G BHARADWAJ
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
ORDER
Date : 25-03-2022 Heard Mr. BP Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the respondent.
This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Page No.# 2/3 Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a writ has been issued for execution of the decree passed in Title Suit No. 37/1995. On perusal of the judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid Title Suit, it is found that the suit is decreed for recovery of possession of the respondent for the said land.
Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decree holder/respondent had filed a title execution proceeding vide Title Execution Case No. 2/1997 which was dismissed for default. Thereafter, another execution proceeding was filed on 18.04.2016 which was again dismissed for default. Another execution proceeding in respect of the same decree was filed which has been numbered as Execution Case No. 7/2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted further that the suit was decreed on 04.05.1996 and the execution proceeding has been initiated after 12 years of the decree. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 136 of the Schedule in the Limitation Act, 1963 to submit that the execution proceeding is time barred since the same has been instituted after 12 years of the decree.
Mr. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that whatever submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as indicated above, are not factually correct.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that decree has already been executed yesterday, i.e., 24.03.2022. To such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only symbolic possession is handed over to the respondent and no physical possession is received by the decree holder/respondent. This Court is not having the exact facts before it as to whether the decree has been executed handing over possession of the decreetal land to the Page No.# 3/3 respondent/decree holder.
In view of the contesting claims made by the learned counsel for the parties, till the next date fixed, the status quo, as on date, in respect of the decreetal land be maintained by both the parties.
List the matter on 30th March, 2022.
The certified copy of the hand written judgment placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is kept with the record for future reference.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant