Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010096402025 2025:GAU-AS:6985 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/185/2025 PUSPANJALI CHANDA WIFE OF SRI BIMAL KUMAR CHANDA, DAUGHTER OF LATE KARUNAMOY SEAL, RESIDENT OF CHANDMARI ROAD, TARAPUR, SILCHAR TOWN, P.O. TARAPUR, SILCHAR - 3, P.S. SILCHAR, CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS SMTI RINI DEB AND ANR WIFE OF SRI NAVJYOTI DEB, RESIDENT OF SREE DURGA SARANI, MEHERPUR, BELTOLA, P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR, CACHAR, ASSAM. 2:NAVJYOTI DEB SON OF LATE NIRMALENDU DEB RESIDENT OF SREE DURGA SARANI MEHERPUR BELTOLA P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM For the petitioner (s) : Mr. B. Phukan, Advocate For the respondent (s) : XXXX Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 30.05.2025 Heard Mr. B. Phukan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The present petition has been filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, No.2, Cachar at Silchar whereby an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) for stay of the execution of the ex-parte decree dated 20.12.2018 passed in Title Suit No.98/2018 till the disposal of the application filed for setting aside the ex-parte order passed in Misc.(J) Case No.50/2022 was rejected. 3. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that by the order dated 12.01.2023, the stay sought to the execution proceedings was rejected and the same is being assailed before this Court by filing the present application on 03.05.2025, i.e. after 2 years 4 months and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that till date the execution proceedings have not been culminated. The challenging of the Page No.# 3/3 order dated 12.01.2023 after almost 2 years 4 months would clearly go to show that the petitioner has all along availed the benefits of the execution proceedings having not been culminated. 4. It is also surprising to take note of that the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code is also pending before the said Court. The petitioner has not stated what are the reasons as to why after 2 years 4 months, the instant proceedings have been filed challenging the order dated 12.01.2023. 5. Considering the above, this Court finds no ground to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court for which the instant petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant