Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010239462024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/209/2025 APURBA SUNGKRUNG @ APURBA CHUNGKRUNG S/O- LATE BHUBAN SUNGKRUNG, R/O- VILLAGE- RAICHAI GAON, P.O AND P.S- DEMOW, SIBSAGAR, ASSAM VERSUS KUNJALATA DUTTA D/O- LATE RANJIT DUTTA, R/O- SANTIPUR , P.O AND P.S- DEMOW, SIBSAGAR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R SENSUA, P KUNDU,R A LAHKAR,G KAUSHIK Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 20.06.2025 Heard Mr. R. Sensua, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 115, read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.03.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Page No.# 2/3 Sivasagar, in Misc. (J) Case No. 108/2023, arising out Title Execution No. 1/2018. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 15.03.2024, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Sivasagar (‘executing Court’, for short) had rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17, read with Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC. 4. Mr. Sensua, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the decree holder in Title Suit No. 78/2008, and he had put the said decree in execution and during the pendency of the title execution case, being Title Execution Case No. 1/2018, the Nazir reported that the decretal land along with the boundaries as mentioned in the counterclaim is 3 kathas, but the decretal land is 2 kathas, and the boundary in the northern side of the schedule of the counterclaim is also found to be different from that of the counterclaim. Mr. Sensua also submits that thereafter, the petitioner had filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 17, read with Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC, but the learned executing Court had dismissed the same on the ground that the amendment as prayed for by the petitioner is on the basis of material facts as stated in the written statement-cum-counterclaim by the petitioner/defendant that the Court had pronounced its judgment as well as the decree. Mr. Sensua by referring a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Singh and Ors. Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad and Ors., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 330, especially to paragraph 17, submits that when the suit as to immovable property has been decreed and the property is not definitely identified, the defect in the Court record caused by overlooking of provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 3 and Order 20 Rule 3 of the CPC is capable of being cured, but while passing the impugned order dated 15.03.2024, the learned Page No.# 3/3 executing Court has overlooked the aforementioned provision, and it is has only taken note of Order 6 Rule 17, read with Sections, 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC, and on such count, the impugned order fails to withstand legal scrutiny and therefore, Mr. Sensua has contended to set aside the same. 5. Having heard the submission of Mr. Sensua, learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 15.03.2024, and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Singh (supra). 6. Taking note of the submission of Mr. Sensua, learned counsel for the petitioner, and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, and further taking note of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Singh (supra), especially paragraph 17, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 15.03.2024. Accordingly, the matter is relegated to the learned executing Court to consider the petition of the petitioner in the light of the observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Singh (supra), especially paragraph 17. 7. The petitioner shall appear before the learned executing Court on the next date fixed. 8. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant