Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010213632025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/399/2025 BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER AND POLYMER LTD AND 2 ORS. A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDER THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR, NRL CENTRE, 122A, GS ROAD, GUWAHATI-781005 2: THE CHIEF MANAGER (SECURITY) BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER AND POLYMER LTD. LEPETKATA DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786006 3: THE SENIOR MANAGER (LAW) BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER AND POLYMER LTD. LEPETKATA DIBRUGARH ASSAM-786006 VERSUS MS F J TRADING COMPANY AND ANR A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR MS FARHANA JINNET , W/O WARISH SHAH, R/O KC GOGOI PATH, GABHARUPATHER, SHAH NIWAS, P.S. AND DIST. DIBRUGARH 2:M/S JAIHIND PROJECTS LIMITED HEAD OFFICE AT ATLANTICS CORPORATE PARK NEAR PRAHLAD NAGAR AUDA GARDEN ANANDA NAGAR ROAD SATELLITE AHMEDABAD-380015 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N DEKA, MR. S BANIKYA,MR. M GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 19.09.2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. N. Deka for the petitioners who have filed this application Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with prayer for setting aside the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dibrugarh in Money Execution Case no.3/2019. 2. It is submitted that the petitioners are apprehending that contempt proceedings may be drawn up as has been mentioned in the impugned order dated 08.08.2025. It is further submitted that the petitioners were not parties in the original suit being Title Suit no.31 / 2015 from which the Money Execution Case no.3/ 2019 has originated. 3. It is submitted that vide order dated 07.08.2025 of this Court in CRP( I/ O) 309/ 2025 in connection with Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Ltd. vs- M/S F.J Trading Company and others, the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dibrugarh dated 21.06.2025 was set aside directing the court to hear the parties on Petition no.114/ 2025 dated 04.01.2025. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 was passed. It was ordered by the court that a report dated 07.08.2025 was received from the Civil Nazir and he along with the process Server on 06.08 2025 had earlier visited the site. The representatives of the decree holder along with seven labourers along with one crane and hydra were present at the site. But the officers of CISF and BCPL Page No.# 3/5 refused to issue passes to the labourers and the vehicles in entering into the premises as they did not receive any e-mail from the head of security department. Permission was not accorded to remove the scrap materials from the campus of the BCPL. Later on, at 3:30 p.m. they were allowed to remove the scrap material from the premises of the BCPL, but again when the DH along with the process server arrived at the main entrance, they were kept waiting by the CISF personnel till 4:15 p.m as the security force officers did not receive any e-mails from the security department. Again on 07.08.2025 p.m. the DH, the Nazir along with the others visited the sites and arranged 25 labourers, four trailers, three hydra and two cranes to remove the scrap materials. They reached the spot at about 10:25 a.m. but at 11 a.m., the court staff were allowed to enter the premises but the labourers were not permitted to enter the site. It was also observed by the Court that on perusal of the court records, it is discernable that on earlier occasions also the BCPL has obstructed execution by restraining the Civil Nazir which is reflected in the orders dated 28.06.2024 and 03.08.2024. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this court to the orders dated 28.06.2024 and 03.08.2024 passed in execution case. Annexure-G of the petition clearly reflects that no obstruction of the BCPL has been reflected in the orders dated 28.06.2024 and 03.08.2024. 5. I have scrutinized the Annexure-G which includes the orders dated 28.06.2024 and 03.08.2024. This court in CRP( I/ O) 309/ 2025 has directed vide order dated 07.08.2025 to hear the petition no. 114/ 2025 dated 04.01.2025 and thereafter has directed the court to pass a reasoned order and to proceed with the matter further. But the petition no.114/ 2025 dated 04.01.2025 has not been taken up by the court and the court proceeded with Page No.# 4/5 the execution without deciding the petition no.114/ 2025 dated 04.01.2025 in violation of the order of this court order dated 07.08.2025 in connection with CRP( I/ O) 309/ 2025. It was also observed by this Court in paragraph-6 of the order dated 07.08.2025 that a petition No. 114/2025, has been filed before the learned Executing Court, but the same has not yet been attended to, by the learned Executing Court, instead the Court has directed the Civil Nazir to execute the writ and submit the report on 07.08.2025. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration of the submissions made. The executing court is hereby directed to comply with the order of this court dated 07.08. 2025 in connection with CRP( I/ O) 309/ 2025 and hear the parties on petition no.114/ 2025 dated 04.01.2025 before proceeding with execution. 7. I have also relied on the decision of H9on’ble Supreme Court in the case of E. Bapanaiah vs- K.S. Raju and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 451, wherein it has been held in 28 as follows: “28. The present case relates to a civil contempt wherein an undertaking given to Company Law Board is breached. Normally, the general provisions made under the Contempt of Courts Act are not invoked by the High Courts for forcing a party to obey orders passed by its subordinate courts for the simple reason that there are provisions contained in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to get executed its orders and decrees. It is settled principle of law that where there are special law and general law, the provisions of special law would prevail over general law. As such, in normal circumstances a decree holder cannot take recourse of Contempt of Courts Act else it is sure to throw open a floodgate of litigation under contempt jurisdiction. It is not the object of the Contempt of Courts Act to make decree holders rush to the High Courts simply for the reason that the decree passed by the subordinate court is not obeyed.” 8. The petitioner is apprehending that the contempt proceedings may be drawn up against the petitioners as they are directed to show cause as to why Page No.# 5/5 the matter should not be referred to this court, for drawing up proceeding of contempt. It appears that at this juncture, as the petitioners are willing to place their submission on petition no.114/ 2025. Any contempt proceeding is not required to be drawn up and show cause is not required to be issued as contempt proceedings is not to be drawn up, at least at this stage. The order dated 08.08.2025 is hereby set aside and the court is directed initially to dispose of petition no.114/ 2025 dated 04.01.2025 and thereafter proceed as per law. This order may not affect the merits of the execution proceedings, or preclude the Court from taking any further action, if required . 9. In terms of the above observation, the revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant