Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Kishan Gopal Agarwalla And 4 Ors on 9 June, 2023
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010058072022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/56/2022
MD. BABUL RAHMAN
S/O. LT. ABDUL RAHMAN, R/O. A.T. ROAD, SOUTH HAIBARGAON, MOUZA-
TOWN, P.O. HAIBARGAON, P.S. NAGAON SADAR, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM,
782002.
VERSUS
KISHAN GOPAL AGARWALLA AND 4 ORS.
S/O. LT. PUNAM CHAND AGARWALLA, R/O. OLD A.T. ROAD,
HAIBARGAON, NAGAON TOWN, P.O. HAIBARGAON, DIST. NAGAON,
ASSAM, 782002.
2:JUGAL KISHOR AGARWALLA @ LOHIA
S/O. LT. NAND KISHOR AGARWALLA @ LOHIA
R/O. A.T. ROAD
HAIBARGAON
LOHIA MARKET
P.O. HAIBARGAON
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
782002.
3:SMT. PARMESWARI DEVI AGARWALLA
W/O. LT. NAND KISHORE AGARWALLA @ LOHIA
R/O. A.T. ROAD
HAIBARGAON
LOHIA MARKET
P.O. HAIBARGAON
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
782002.
4:SMT. KRISHNA DEVI CHENANI
W/O. SRI GOURI SHANKAR CHENANI
R/O. A.T. ROAD
HAIBARGAON
LOHIA MARKET
P.O. HAIBARGAON
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
782002.
5:MD. ATIKUR RAHMAN
S/O. LT. ABDUL RAHMAN
R/O. GHUTULI PATTY
HAIBARGAON
P.O. HAIBARGAON
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
782002
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K SINGHA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P K GARODIA
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
O R D E R
09.06.2023
Heard Mr. K. Singha, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Garodia, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents.
2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
challenging the order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the learned Civil
Page No.# 3/4
Judge, Nagaon in Title Execution Case No.13/2014.
3. The Title Execution Case No.13/2014 relates to 1 Katha 7 Lechas of
land. The present petitioner being a third party to the proceeding, filed a
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.11/2020 under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 of
the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that he is the owner of 2 Kathas of
land and by the aforesaid decree, he is being evicted from his land. The
petitioner filed an application under Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil
Procedure praying for stay of the execution proceeding. The Executing
Court dismissed this petition.
4. Mr. Garodia submits that in order to exercise the provision under
Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner must be a
judgment-debtor, not a third party like the present petitioner.
5. Mr. Singha, on the other hand, submits that if the decree is not
stayed, his petition under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, would become infructuous.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of
both sides. Order 21 Rule 29 reads as under:
"29. Stay of execution pending suit between decree-holder and
judgment-debtor. - Where a suit is pending in any Court against the holder of a
decree of such Court [or of a decree which is being executed by such Court],
on the part of the person against whom the decree was passed, the Court
may, on such terms as to scrutiny or otherwise, as it thinks fit, stay execution of
the decree until the pending suit has been decided:
[Provided that if the decree is one for payment of money, the Court shall,
if it grants stay without requiring security, record its reasons for so doing.]."
Page No.# 4/4
7. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, I find force in the
submission of Mr. Garodia. Since the petitioner is not the judgment-
debtor, he is not entitled to seek stay of execution of the decree, under
Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
8. The learned Trial Court has correctly dismissed the petition of the
petitioner and no interference of this Court is required to that effect.
The Civil Revision Petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands
dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
