Allowed

Lalbabu Sah v. Dayananda Prasad

Gauhati HC15 Nov 2021CRP(IO)/22/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted leave to produce documents under CPC Order VII Rule 14(3) for execution proceedings. It quashed an order expunging affidavit evidence before cross-examination. The court directed the executing court to dispose of the case within six months and directed both petitions as allowed.

What did the court decide?

Leave to produce documents under Order VII Rule 14(3) granted; impugned order quashed; parties to appear on 10/12/2021 for evidence filing.

Lalbabu Sah Vs Dayananda Prasad — Execution and Attachment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010000652020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : CRP(IO)/13/2020

¶5

LALBABU SAH

¶6

S/O- LATE LAKHI SAH, R/O- WARD NO. 6, NEAR TEZPUR ELECTRICITY BOARD (OLD POWER HOUSE), TEZPUR 784001, P.O- TEZPUR, P.S- TEZPUR, SADAR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

DAYANANDA PRASAD

¶9

S/O- LATE RAMESWAR PRASAD, R/O- TEZPUR TOWN (NEAR GOPAL CYCLE STORE) MAIN ROAD, MOUZA- MAHABHAIRAV, P.O AND P.STEZPUR SADAR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784001

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P ROY

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P SUNDI

¶12

Linked Case : CRP(IO)/22/2021

¶13

LALBABU SAH S/O LATE LAKHI SAH R/O WARD NO. 6 NEAR TEZPUR ELECTRICITY BOARD (OLD POWER HOUSE) TEZPUR 784001 P.O. TEZPUR P.S. TEZPUR SADAR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM.

¶14

Page No.# 2/6

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

DAYANANDA PRASAD S/O LATE RAMESWAR PRASAD R/O TEZPUR TOWN (NEAR GOPAL CYCLE STORE) MAIN ROAD MOUZA MAHABHAIRAV P.O. AND P.S. TEZPUR SADAR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM.

¶17

-----------Advocate for : MR. S P ROY Advocate for : appearing for DAYANANDA PRASAD

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 15-11-2021

¶22

Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as well as Mr. P. Sundi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶23

Both CRP(I/O) No.13/2020 and CRP (I/O) No. 22/2021 are taken up together as both relates to the same execution proceedings.

¶24

For the purpose of disposal of the instant petitions, the relevant facts are that the respondent herein had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 35/1996 before the Court of the Munsiff at Tezpur seeking right, title and interest and recovery of possession against one Dhanpal Gowala. The said suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 19/04/1999 passed in Title Suit No. 35/1996. Pursuant thereto, the respondent herein initiated the execution proceedings, which was registered and numbered as Execution Case No. 14/1999. The petitioner herein, who claims to be a third party initially filed a suit being Title Suit No. 155/2014 challenging the judgment and decree dated 19/04/1999 passed in Title Suit No.

¶25

Page No.# 3/6

¶26

35/1996; seeking a declaration that the petitioner was not in occupation of the decreetal land as described in the judgment and decree dated 19/04/1999 passed in Title Suit No. 35/1996 and for permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed in view of the bar contained under Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and consequently an application was filed under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 97, 98 and 101 of the CPC in the execution proceeding.

¶27

It has been brought to my attention by Mr. P. Sundi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that initially the petitioner had filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC in the execution proceeding in Title Execution Case No.14/1999, which was registered as Misc.(J) Case No. 138/2009 and thereafter had again filed another application under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 97, 98 and 101 of the CPC, which has been registered and numbered as Misc.(J) Case No. 155/2014. Be that as it may, it may be relevant to mention here that the said proceeding under Order XXI Rule 97, 98 and 101 registered Misc. (J) Case No. 155/2014 was fixed for evidence and the petitioner had filed the evidence on affidavit of the petitioner herein and has also filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the CPC with a prayer to allow him to produce certain document on the ground that the said documents were not in possession of the petitioner at the time of filing the application under Order XXI Rule 97, 98 and 101 of the CPC. The Court below by the impugned order dated 07/08/2019 rejected the said application under Order VII Rule 14(3) and it is against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court in CRP (I/O) No. 13/2020. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Executing Court, the petitioner filed another application before the Executing Court seeking adjournment on the ground that he would prefer an appeal against the order dated 07/08/2019. The Court below taking into account that the petitioner had

¶28

Page No.# 4/6

¶29

already taken two numbers of adjournment for preferring an appeal before the High Court rejected the said petition vide order dated 30/09/2019. Against the said order dated 30/09/2019, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which has been registered and numbered as CRP(I/O) No. 22/2021.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. SP Roy in both the petitions as well as Mr. P. Sundi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶31

Mr. SP Roy the learned counsel submits that these documents for which leave was sought for under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC are very vital for adjudication of the petitioner’s right under Order XXI Rule 100 of the CPC, and as such, the non-granting of the leave as sought for would severely prejudice the petitioner. Mr. Roy further submits that the order dated 30/09/2019 on the face of it was erroneous, inasmuch as the Executing Court could not have expunged the evidence of the PW as the case was not fixed for crossexamination of the PW. He further submitted that on the date on which the order dated 30/09/2019 was passed, he upon instruction had already taken steps for filing an application challenging the order dated 07/08/2019, and as such, it would have been in the interest of justice that the Executing court could have waited for a few days and granted the adjournment.

¶32

Mr. P. Sundi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the judgment and decree for which the execution application was filed was passed on 19/04/1999 and as on date more than 23 years have already passed and the respondent is yet to taste the fruits of the decree. He further submitted that the petitioner has been filing application after application just for the purpose of delaying the execution of the case without

¶33

Page No.# 5/6

¶34

having any legal right in respect to the decreetal land. He further submits that the application filed by the petitioner is barred under Order XXI Rule 104 of the CPC as the petitioner is a transferee pendente lite.

¶35

I have heard the submissions on behalf of the petitioner.

¶36

From a perusal of the application under Order VII Rule 14, it appears that the petitioner sought the leave to bring on record certain official documents marked as document Nos. 1 to 6 to the application under Order VII Rule 14 and it is the specific submission of the petitioner that he is presently in possession of the certified copies of the said documents. It is also the case of the petitioner that those documents are very essential for the purpose of establishing the legal rights of the petitioner in respect to the proceedings and if the said documents are not allowed to be brought on record the petitioner shall be severely prejudiced. The petitioner also submits that apart from the petitioner’s witness, i.e., PW-1, whose evidence on affidavit has already been filed, he would be adducing the evidence of other witness and he is ready to file the evidence on affidavit of all the witness as and when this Court directs.

¶37

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the parties and taking into account that the documents mentioned in Sl. No. 1 to 6 of the application under Order VII Rule 14 would be relevant as claimed by the petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice that the said leave sought for as per the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 (3) be granted. Accordingly, the said leave is granted by this Court thereby permitting the petitioner to bring the documents on record mentioned at Sl. No. 1 to 6 to the said petition. However, the admissibility of the said documents is left to be decided by the Executing Court

¶38

Page No.# 6/6

¶39

in terms with the provision of law. As regards the order dated 30/09/2019 passed by the Executing Court, it is erroneous on the face of it as the Executing Court could not have expunged the evidence on affidavit of the PW without the date fixed for cross examination of the PW-1 and it could only have been done in the case when the PW-1 has not appeared, to face his cross examination. Accordingly, the order dated 30/09/2019 is interfered with.

¶40

The parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 10/12/2021 and on which date, Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes upon instruction from the petitioner that he would be filing the remaining evidence on affidavit on behalf of all the petitioner without fail. Taking into account that the respondents are fighting for the last 23 years at the Execution stage, the Court below is directed to dispose off the instant execution proceeding including the application filed by the petitioner under Order Xxi Rule 97, 98 & 101 of the CPC expeditiously and not later than 6(six) months from the date of appearance of the parties. If necessary the Court below shall record the evidence and conclude the hearing on day to day basis.

¶41

Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. No costs.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Lalbabu Sah v. Dayananda Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalbabu Sah v. Dayananda Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Juma Sarkar @ Juma Das Sarkar Vs Sri Mohan Sarkar

Akriti Didwania Vs Sanjay Didwania

Legal Heirs of Late Gangadhar Choubey, Smt. Saraswati Devi and 9 Ors. Vs Sri Ghanashyam Choubey

Imran Hussain Vs Monnaf Ali and 8 Ors.

Mr. Parameswar Kumar Prajapati Vs Mr. Omprakash Sahu

On the Death of Sukur Ali, His Legal Heirs Mizanur Rahman and 6 Ors. Vs Shahidul Islam and 15 Ors.