Page No.# 1/3 vs Page No.# 2/3
2021 Latest Caselaw 2612 Gua

                                                         Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010270912017




                        THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : CRP(IO)/260/2017

         PRASANTA DAS and 5 ORS.


         2: AJOY KR. DAS


         3: BABLU DAS


         4: NANI GOPAL DAS
          1-4 ARE S/O- LATE MADHAB CH. DAS
          R/O- WARD NO. 12
          GHAT COLONY
          DHUBRI TOWN
          P.O
          P.S AND DIST- DHUBRI
         ASSAM

         5: ALO KAR
          D/O- LATE MADHAB CH. DAS
         W/O- ANIL KAR
          R/O- 2 NO. COLONY
          P.O and DIST- GOALPARA
         ASSAM

         6: RATAN KUMAR KANU
          S/O- LATE BHAGABAN RAM KANU
          R/O- GUARD COLONY
         WARD NO. 12
          DHUBRI TOWN AMCO ROAD
          P.O and DIST- DHUBRI
         ASSA

         VERSUS
                                                                            Page No.# 2/3


            BHAGWAN PROSAD and 4 ORS.
            RES.

            2:SANKAR PROSAD
             BOTH ARE S/O- LATE KAMAL PROSAD SHAH
             R/O- DHUBRI TOWN
            WARD NO. 2
             P.O AND DIST- DHUBRI
            ASSAM
             PIN- 783323

            3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REP. BY THE COLLECTOR
             DHUBRI
             DIST- DHUBRI

            4:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER
             DHUBRI

            5:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER
             DHUBRI CIRCLE
             DHUBR

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS.C MOZUMDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A C SARMA




                                   BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                                        ORDER

Date : 29-10-2021

Heard Mr. PK Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner also heard Mr. A.C Sarma, learned counsel assisted by Mr. A Sarma.

Mr. Deka submits that he had come across the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Balwant Lokhande Vs. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 413 and taking into account the said judgment, the decree passed by the trial Court Page No.# 3/3

can only be a preliminary decree which cannot be put to execution and as such, until and unless further steps in terms with Section 54 read with Order 20 Rule 18(1) of the CPC is not taken, the filing of title execution case No.22/2011 infact is not maintainable and the decree can only be executed after any final decree is being passed pursuant to the adjudication made by the Collector in terms with Section 54 of the CPC. Accordingly, he seeks to withdraw the instant proceeding with a liberty to file appropriate application before the learned trial Court.

In view of the above, the instant petition stands dismissed on withdrawal.

The petitioner would always be at liberty to file appropriate application.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant