Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010114322025 2025:GAU-AS:6889 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1686/2025 JAHANARA BEGUM W/O LATE ABDUL ROUF, VILL. CHENGA, MUSOLMANPARA, P.O. CHENGA, P.S. TARABARI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN 781301 (PRESENT ADDRESS, VILL. KUKARPAR, P.O. KHONGRA, P.S. SARTHEBARI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN CODE 781305 VERSUS SUFIA KHATUN AND 7 ORS W/O NOOR HUSSAIN, R/O VILL. KUKARPAR, P.O. KHONGRA, P.S. SARTHEBARI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN 781305 2:MALEK ALI S/O AHMED ALI 3:SAHED ALI S/O TONSER ALI 4:HALIM ALI S/O TONSER ALI 5:MOTIUR RAHMAN S/O OMAR ALI 6:MOKSHED ALI S/O OMAR ALI Page No.# 2/4 7:MUSLEM ALI S/O OMAR ALI 8:SAMARUDDIN S/O OMAR ALI ALL ARE R/O VILL. KUKARPAR P.O. KHONGRA P.S. SARTHEBARI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781305 P.S. SARTHEBARI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN 78130 For the Applicant(s) : Mr. M.U. Mahmud, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 28.05.2025 This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 1238 days in filing the review application seeking review of the judgment and decree passed by this Court dated 30.11.2021 in RSA No. 46/2014. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that prior to the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 30.11.2021 in RSA No. 46/2014, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 12 in RSA Page No.# 3/4 No. 46/2014 had expired and as such have filed the review application. He submitted that the judgment and decree passed by this Court dated 30.11.2021 in RSA No. 46/2014 insofar as the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 12 is a nullity and as such there cannot be any execution carried out thereupon. 3. Taking into account the said submission, this Court enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that as the learned Executing Court has the power to decide on all questions relating to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree, why an appropriate application has not been filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) before the learned Executing Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that he would file appropriate application before the learned Executing Court. 5. As the applicant herein would be filing an application under Section 47 of the Code as submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, nothing remains in the instant application, for which, the instant application stands closed. 6. The closing of the instant application shall not effect the right of the applicant to file appropriate application before the learned Executing Court challenging the execution on the ground that the decree is a nullity. If such application is filed, the learned Executing Court may duly consider the same. 7. This Court makes it clear that the learned Executing Court may not Page No.# 4/4 be influenced by any of the observations made herein above while deciding the application under Section 47 of the Code, if so filed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant