Disposed

Musstt Nekjan Begum and 8 Ors. v. Smti Utpala Bora

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2026CRP/27/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Article 151 of CPC, the High Court directed the trial court to adjudicate a Misc. (J) case challenging an ex-parte decree and ordered a stay on execution proceedings pending such adjudication, relying on a coordinate bench order.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to adjudicate the Misc. (J) case within two months; execution proceedings to remain stayed till disposal of the Misc (J) case.

Musstt Nekjan Begum and 8 Ors. Vs Smti Utpala Bora — Execution and Attachment | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010043572025

2026:GAU-AS:13699

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

¶5

Case No. : CRP/27/2025

¶6

MUSSTT NEKJAN BEGUM AND 8 ORS

¶7

D/O LATE KUDDUS ALI, R/O VILL- RANGAGARAH-HUJ, TANPARA, MOUZA- KACHAMARI, P.O.-HAIBARGAON, P.S.-NAGAON, DIST- NAGAON (ASSAM)

¶8

2: MD. ABDUL RAHIM S/O LATE ABDUL HASIM R/O VILL- BAIAGAON MOUZA- KHATUWAL P.S.-SAMAGURI DIST- NAGAON (ASSAM)

¶9

3: MUSSTT. MONJILA KHATUN D/O LATE ABDUL MALEK R/O VILL- RANGAGARAH-HUJ TANPARA MOUZA- KACHAMARI P.O.-HAIBARGAON P.S.-NAGAON DIST- NAGAON (ASSAM)

¶10

4: MUSSTT. NIGARA SULTANA D/O MD. ABDUL KADIR R/O VILL- BATOMARI MOUZA- DHING P.S.-BATADRABA DIST- NAGAON (ASSAM)

¶11

5: MD SAMSUL HOQUE S/O LATE GAENDHI SHEIKH R/O VILL- KATIMARI GRANT MOUZA- KACHAMARI P.O.-HAIBARGAON P.S.-NAGAON

¶12

Page No.# 2/8

¶13

DIST- NAGAON (ASSAM)

¶14

6: MUSSTT MAINA KHATUN @ BEGUM D/O LATE ABDUL MALEK R/O VILL- RANGAGARAH-HUJ TANPARA MOUZA- KACHAMARI P.O.-HAIBARGAON P.S.-NAGAON DIST- NAGAON (ASSAM)

¶15

7: MD EKRAMUL HUSSAIN S/O LATE ABDUL HAQUE R/O VILL DAHGAON SALPARA MOUZA- ALITANGONI P.S.-JURIA DIST- NAGAON (ASSAM)

¶16

8: MUSSTT SOFURA KHATUN D/O LATE ABDUL SOBHAN R/O VILL- RANGAGARAH-HUJ TANPARA MOUZA- KACHAMARI P.O.-HAIBARGAON P.S.-NAGAON DIST- NAGAON (ASSAM)

¶17

9: MUSSTT AJIDA KHATUN W/O LATE ABDUL JALIL R/O VILL- KATIMARI GRANT MOUZA- KACHAMARI P.S.-NAGAON SADAR DIST- NAGAON (ASSAM

¶18

VERSUS

¶19

SMTI UTPALA BORA W/O SRI KUMUD CHANDRA BORA, R/O VILL- NAMGHAR ROAD, SOUTH HAIBARGAAON, MOUZA- TOWN, P.S.-NAGAON, DIST- NAGAON (ASSAM)

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P DEKA, MR A DAS,MR R HOQUE,MR. A CHETIA

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶22

BEFORE

¶23

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMAR

Page No.# 3/8

ORDER

16.09.2026

Heard Mr. P Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶28

This instant application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the CPC, has been preferred by the petitioners, assailing the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon in an application filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC and registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 23/2025 in Title Execution Case No. 6/2005, whereby the interim order prayed for by the petitioner was rejected and directed that it will be considered only after hearing the opposite party No. 1 / respondent No. 1.

¶29

By order dated 02.04.2025, this Court had issued notice to the sole respondent, returnable in two weeks, and steps to be taken by the petitioners by registered post with A/D and also by usual process within two working days.

¶30

By order dated 24.09.2025, this Court observed that the service was complete on the sole respondent, but the respondent remained unrepresented.

¶31

Thereafter, by order dated 27.10.2025, it was again reflected in the order by this Court that the sole respondent remained absent and that the sole respondent had not appeared for many dates, and therefore one last opportunity was given to the respondent to contest the matter, and it was directed that if on the next date if none appears on behalf of the sole

¶32

Page No.# 4/8

¶33

respondent, the petitioner shall be heard.

¶34

By the order dated 27.10.2025, the further proceedings of Title Execution Case No. 6/2025 arising out of Title Suit No. 13/1995 was directed to remain stayed in respect of the present petitioners.

¶35

When the matter is called today, none appears for the sole respondent, and accordingly, as per the observation of this Court in the order dated 27.10.2025, this matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal on the basis of the records available before the Court.

¶36

The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant revision petition is that the petitioners are in peaceful possession of land measuring 46 Bighas 1 Katha 18 Lessas, which was delivered to them by the sole respondent upon execution of sale agreements dated 24.02.2012 and 04.11.2016, and in return, the respondent had accepted the earnest money from the petitioners. After the execution of the aforesaid deeds of agreement for sale dated 24.02.2012 and 04.11.2016, the petitioners were delivered possession of their respective land and they have been in exclusive possession of the said land by building dwelling houses and cattle sheds, etc., after developing the land at their own cost.

¶37

When matters stood thus, the petitioners state that on 29.01.2025, without any prior notice to the petitioners, the Civil Nazir of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon, Lat Mandal, Circle Officer of the Sadar Revenue Circle, along with the police forces, entered the land of the petitioners and asked the petitioners to remove their houses and belongings, and stated that the petitioners would be evicted.

¶38

It was found out by the petitioners that there was a decree passed by

¶39

Page No.# 5/8

¶40

the Civil Judge, Nagaon in Title Suit No. 13/1995. However, the description of the land mentioned in the original decree of Title Suit No. 13/1995 and the warrant of possession did not match with the present land of the petitioners and it was not as per the original decree.

¶41

The petitioners also came to learn that in the year 1995, the respondent as plaintiff had filed the title suit for declaration of right title and for recovery of land measuring 49 Bighas 4 Kathas 17 Lessas, registered as Title Suit No. 13/1995. However, the defendants in the said Title Suit No. 13/1995 were different persons and the petitioners were never the defendants in the said Title Suit No. 13/1995. The said Title Suit No. 13/1995 was decreed ex-parte on 07.09.1999, declaring the plaintiff/respondent as the title holder and also for eviction of the defendants in Title Suit No. 13/1995 from the suit land.

¶42

Thereafter, the respondent herein in the year 2006 filed the title execution case for execution of the ex-parte decree dated 07.09.1999, which was numbered as Title Execution Case No. 6/2005 before the Civil Judge, Nagaon.

¶43

Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 151 of the CPC before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon in the Title Execution Case No. 6/2005 for a decree praying for declaration that the petitioners are not bound by the ex-parte decree dated 07.09.1999 passed in Title Suit No. 13/1995 and that they are not evictable at the instance of the said decree, and also prayed for an order of permanent injunction for not disturbing the peaceful and lawful possession of the petitioners in respect of the lands. In the said application under Order 21 Rule 97, the petitioners also prayed for an

¶44

Page No.# 6/8

¶45

interim order to recall the writ of possession, issue in connection with the execution case, and to postpone the delivery of possession of the decretal land till the disposal of the application. The said application was registered and numbered as Misc. (J) Case No. 23/2025.

¶46

The Misc. (J) Case No. 23/2025 was taken up on 05.02.2025 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nagaon. However, the learned trial court refused to grant interim stay on the execution order and directed that the prayer for the interim stay on the execution order shall be considered only after hearing the opposite party.

¶47

Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶48

The petitioners have also referred to an order dated 25.11.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRP (IO) 57/2021, which was a similarly situated case pertaining to the same suit land, inasmuch as the petitioners in CRP (IO) 57/2021 were also being evicted in pursuance of execution of the same decree and in the same execution case No. 6/2005.

¶49

The Coordinate Bench of this Court after hearing the parties allowed the petition and directed the trial court to immediately adjudicate the Misc. (J) case filed by the petitioners in the Execution Case No. 6/2005 arising out of Title Suit No. 13/1995 within a period of three weeks from the date the parties appear before the court of the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon, and further, this Court also provided that Execution Case No. 6/2005 shall be proceeded with in respect of the petitioners only after the disposal of the Misc. (J) Case filed by them under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC.

¶50

The learned counsel therefore submits that this instant case is squarely

¶51

Page No.# 7/8

¶52

covered by the order dated 25.11.2022 passed in CRP (IO) 57/2021 and prays that a similar order may be passed in the instant application.

¶53

This Court has considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and has perused the pleadings.

¶54

In the instant case, it is seen that the facts and circumstances are exactly the same as those of the petitioners in CRP (IO) 57/ 2021. In the instant case also, the petitioners had filed the Misc. (J) Case No. 23/2025 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon, Assam under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 151 of the CPC.

¶55

The petitioners herein had contended in the Misc. (J) Case No. 23/ 2025 that the description of the land mentioned in the original decree of Title Suit No. 13/1995 and the description of land mentioned in the warrant of possession are totally different and that the warrant of possession was not as per the original decree. The petitioners had also contended that they are not bound by the decree passed in TS No. 13/1995 and that they were not parties to the said title suit. The petitioners had additionally prayed for an interim order praying for postponement of the delivery of possession of the decreetal land till the disposal of the Misc. (J) case filed by them and also for an interim direction to recall the writ of possession issued in connection with the Title Execution Case No. 6/2005. However, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Nagaon by the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 held that the prayer for interim stay shall be considered only after hearing the Opposite Party No.1.

¶56

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed

¶57

Page No.# 8/8

¶58

hereinabove, and in view of the fact that the instant case is similarly situated with the facts of the case in CRP (IO) 57/2021, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nagaon to immediately adjudicate the Misc. (J) case No. 23/2025 filed by the petitioners herein in Title Execution Case No. 6/2005 preferably within a period of two months from the date the parties appear before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nagaon along with a certified copy of this order.

¶59

Parties shall appear before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Nagaon on 05.10.2026.

¶60

It is also directed that the Title Execution Case No. 6/2025 shall proceed, only after disposal of the Misc (J) case No. 23/2025 in so far as it relates to the petitioners.

¶61

It is further clarified that the execution proceeding in Title Execution Case No. 6/2025 in respect of the present petitioners shall remain stayed till the disposal of the Misc. (J) Case No. 23/2025 and further the learned trial court shall adjudicate the proceeding with respect to the petitioner without being influenced by the observation made herein and also without being influenced by the finding arrived at in respect of the petitioners in CRP (IO) 57/2021 and in Misc (J) Case No. 6/2021.

¶62

With the above observation, the present petition stands disposed of.

¶63

JUDGE

¶64

Comparing Assistant

Musstt Nekjan Begum and 8 Ors. v. Smti Utpala Bora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musstt Nekjan Begum and 8 Ors. v. Smti Utpala Bora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases