[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/2 vs Hari Prasad Agarwal on 9 December, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010121002023
2025:GAU-AS:16948
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/58/2023
SIRAJ KHAN
S/O- LATE REFAT KHAN, R/O- 1ST FLOOR, ASSAM UDYOG COMPANY
MANCOTTA ROAD, TOWN-DIBRUGARH, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. DIBRUGARH,
ASSAM
VERSUS
HARI PRASAD AGARWAL
PROPRIETOR, ASSAM UDYOG COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT MANCOTTA ROAD, TOWN- DIBRUGARH, P.O., P.S. AND DIST.
DIBRUGARH, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA, MR. P DEKA,MR. A CHETIA,MR M
SAHEWALLA,MS T J SAHEWALLA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A BHATTACHARJEE, D J CHAKMA
:: BEFORE ::
(HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA)
Advocate(s) for the Petitioner : Mr. G.N. Sahewalla,
Sr. Advocate.
Advocate(s) for the Respondent : Mr. D. Nath,
Advocate.
Date on which judgment is reserved : 19.08.2025.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.12.2025.
Page No.# 2/2
Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment? : YES.
Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced? : YES.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
D. Nath, learned counsel representing the sole respondent.
2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated
13.03.2023 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh in Title Execution Case No.04/2016.
3. The respondent is the decree holder in respect of T.S. 206/2007. He filed the suit against the
present petitioner for his eviction from the tenanted premises. The tenanted premises was described as a
four room RCC house with concrete roof on the first floor of the building of Assam Udyog Company.
4. Vide Title Execution Case No.04/2016 , the decree was executed. The Civil Nazir handed over the
vacant possession of the four rooms to the respondent.
5. Thereafter, on 10.01.2020, the respondent filed an application before the Executing Court stating
that the present petitioner being the judgment debtor, though was given four rooms on rent, had erected
partitions and converted the four rooms into six rooms. The decree holder also submitted before the
court that the judgment debtor was also occupying two other rooms, one room in the first floor under
the stair case and the other room being on the second floor. The judgment debtor has restrained the
executing staff from evicting him from the said two rooms on the ground that those two rooms were
beyond the decree.
6. It is an admitted fact when the vacant possession of the four rooms was handed over to the
respondent, the respondent was not personally present there, rather he was represented by his Attorney.
7. After hearing both sides, the executing court directed the petitioner being the judgment debtor to
vacate the premises as claimed by the respondent.
8. The only plea taken up by the petitioner is that a decree after execution cannot be further executed
or re-executed.
9. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides, this Court must
remind itself that a decree is always alive unless set aside by a superior court. The decree in the Title
Execution Case No.04/2016 is still alive. The learned trial court has acted within its jurisdiction and in
such a scenario a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The present
revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
