Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030003022025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/81/2025 Smt Lalchhuani and 3 Ors. W/o Noduma (L), R/o Dinthar, Aizawl 2: Sh. Lalrohminga S/o Noduma (L) R/o Dinthar Aizawl 3: Sh. Lalbiakngura H/o Janet Lalparmawii R/o Dinthar Aizawl 4: Sh. Johny Lalsanga H/o P.C. Lalremtluangi R/o Dinthar Aizaw VERSUS Sh. Vanlalduha S/o Nodums (L), R/b Master Lalremruata, Through Smt. Lalhlimawmi, W/o Vanlalduha (L), R/o Dinthar, Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mrs. H Lalmalsawmi Advocate for the Respondent : Page No.# 2/4 B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 26.06.2025 Heard Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel for the applicant, who has filed the instant application under Order 21 Rule 26 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 for staying of the operation of the Order dated 24.04.2025 in Execution Case No. 74 of 2023 A/o Title Suit No. 4 of 2015. Also heard Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the Opposite Party. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 4 of 2015 had directed the applicants to vacate the suit premises and deliver the possession of the same to the respondent. In the meantime, the applicants had preferred the First Regular Appeal before the Appellate Court registered as RFA No. 22 of 2025 A/o Title Suit No. 4 of 2015, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide Order dated 10.02.2025. Aggrieved by the order of the first Appellate Court dated 10.02.2025, the instant RFA has been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that unless the Order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Execution Case No. 72 of 2023 A/o Title Suit No. 4 of 2015 to vacate the suit premises is stayed, the very purpose of filing the appeal would be frustrated. She submitted that the balance of convenience is in favor of the applicants/appellants, who are residing in the suit premises and therefore, there is no impediment in staying the Order dated 24.04.2025 till the disposal of the connected RSA No. 4 of 2025. The Page No.# 3/4 learned counsel further submitted that there is every likelihood that the impugned Judgment & Order dated 10.02.2025 in RFA No. 22 of 2025 A/o Title Suit No. 4 of 2015 is likely to be set aside along with the Title Suit No. 4 of 2015 and the connected Execution Case No. 72 of 2023. Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the applicants are the mother and siblings of the respondent and the eviction Order dated 24.04.2025 passed in Execution Case No. 74 of 2023 is for the eviction of the siblings of the respondent since the applicant No. 1/mother of the respondent is not staying in the suit premises. He further submitted that there are no sufficient grounds for setting aside the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court in RFA No. 22 of 2025 A/o Title Suit No. 4 of 2015. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, this court considering the fact that the suit premises are presently occupied by the applicants, find it appropriate to stay the operation of the Order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the executing court in Execution Case No. 74 of 2023, on finding that the balance of convenience would be in favor of the applicants at this stage. Accordingly, I.A.(Civil) No. 81 of 2025 is disposed of by staying the operation of the impugned Order dated 24.04.2025 in Execution Case No. 74 of 2023 A/o Title Suit No. 4 of 2015 till the disposal of the connected RSA No. 4 of 2025. JUDGE Page No.# 4/4 Comparing Assistant