Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010146202024 2025:GAU-AS:7981 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/264/2024 TARINI KANTA NATH S/O- LATE PRABHAT CH. NATH, R/O- VILL.- KUWARIGAON, P.O. BONGIRA, P.S. AZARA, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781015. VERSUS SAKUNTALA DEVI W/O- GIRISH CHANDRA SARMA, R/O- VILL.- BULLARPAR, P.O. GAUHATI AIRPORT, P.S. AZARA, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781015. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, S N NATH,MS. M BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N N JHA, MS M SAHOO,MR. M UDDIN BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 17.06.2025 Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.N. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the CPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.02.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (Executing Court hereinafter), in Misc. (J) Case No. 327/2023, arising out of Title Execution Case No. 29/2019. Page No.# 2/4 3. It is to be noted here that vide order dated 29.02.2024, the learned Executing Court had allowed the petition for restoring the Title Execution Case No. 29/2019 to file, which was dismissed for default, vide order dated 09.01.2023, in Misc. (J) Case No. 327/2023 of the respondent herein by allowing the condonation petition, being Misc. (J) Case No. 328/2023. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Title Execution Case No. 29/2019, the respondent herein, being decree holder, remained absent before the learned Executing Court on various dates and for which, the learned Executing Court had dismissed the said execution proceeding on 09.01.2023. But, later on, on a petition, being filed by the respondent herein, the learned Civil Court had restored the said execution proceeding, vide order dated 29.02.2024, without assigning any justified grounds. As such, Mr. Das submits that the impugned order dated 29.02.2024, warrants interference of this court. 5. Per-contra, Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Executing Court, considering the relevant provision of Order 21 Rule 106 of the CPC and also considering the grounds mentioned in the petition filed by the respondent herein, had restored the execution proceeding and that the said order suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring interference of this court and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 29.02.2024. 7. The basic facts herein this case are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in the title execution proceeding, the respondent herein remained absent and the reason for such absence was duly reflected by the learned Executing Court in the impugned order dated 29.02.2024, by stating that the facts narrated in the Page No.# 3/4 petition as well as in the documents annexed thereto transpire that till 03.12.22, the respondent herein was duly pursuing the execution proceeding and taking necessary steps, but, on the subsequent dates, the respondent herein remained absent on account of mismatch between the date shown in the court diary and the CIS and in the record of execution proceeding. It is also stated that in the court diary and the CIS, while the date was shown as 14.02.23, in the case record the date was shown as 15.12.22. 7.1. Thereafter, the learned Civil Court had observed that this was not a case where the respondent herein was negligent in the matter and the respondent herein was under the bonafide impression that the case was fixed on 14.02.23 and not on 15.12.22. Thereafter, on being aware of the dismissal of the execution proceeding, the respondent herein applied for necessary certified copies and instructed his counsel to prepare the petition, which was filed on 10.03.23. 7.2. Thereafter, on being shown sufficient cause for non-appearance, the learned Executing Court had allowed the petition and restored the execution proceeding. 8. It is to be noted here that Order 21 Rule 106 of the CPC provides as under:- “(1) The applicant, against whom an order is made under sub-rule (2) rule 105 or the opposite party against whom an order is passed ex parte under sub-rule (3) of that rule or under sub-rule (1) of rule 23, may apply to the Court to set aside the order, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non- appearance when the application was called on for hearing, the Court shall set aside the order or such terms as to costs, or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for the further hearing of the application. Page No.# 4/4 (2) No order shall be made on an application under sub-rule (1) unless notice of the application has been served on the other party. (3) An application under sub-rule (1) shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order, or where, in the case of an ex parte order, the notice was not duly served, within thirty days from the date when applicant had knowledge of the order.” 9. Thus, having examined the impugned order in the light and the given facts and circumstances on the record and also in the light of the relevant provision, i.e. Order 21 Rule 106 of the CPC, this court is of the considered opinion that the same suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring any interference of this court, as sufficient ground has been shown for absence of the respondent herein in the execution proceeding. 10. Accordingly, I find this revision petition devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant