Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010092942018 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/214/2018 LAL MIA AND 6 ORS. S/O- INTAZ ALI, R/O- VILL- KADANG, MOUZA- JANIA, P.S- KALGACHIA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781319 2: NAYAN ALI S/O- INTAZ ALI R/O- VILL- KADANG MOUZA- JANIA P.S- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781319 3: AYAN ALI S/O- INTAZ ALI R/O- VILL- KADANG MOUZA- JANIA P.S- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781319 4: HASMAT ALI S/O- INTAZ ALI R/O- VILL- KADANG MOUZA- JANIA P.S- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781319 5: HIKMAT ALI S/O- INTAZ ALI R/O- VILL- KADANG Page No.# 2/4 MOUZA- JANIA P.S- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781319 6: SHABJAN NESSA D/O- INTAZ ALI R/O- VILL- KADANG MOUZA- JANIA P.S- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781319 7: AFJAN NESSA D/O- INTAZ ALI R/O- VILL- KADANG MOUZA- JANIA P.S- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 78131 VERSUS RAMJAN ALI S/O- LATE KASHEM ALI, R/O- VILL- KADANG, MOUZA- JANIA, P.S- KALGACHIA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781319 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, MS. M AHMED,MR G BHARADWAJ,MS. H BEGUM,MR S Z AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : DR. B U AHMED, MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY,MR M HUSSAIN,MR. N HAQUE,MR M HUSSAIN,MR. S R BARBHUIYA Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 02.12.2025 Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Barpeta in Misc.(J) Case No. 139/2016 arising out of T.S. No.285/2010. 3. The petitioners are not parties in T.S. No.285/2010. The suit was decreed and at the time of execution of the decree, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 of the said Code, challenging the execution of the decree. The learned Munsiff dismissed the said application on certain grounds. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 5. Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. 6. Mr. Roy Choudhury has submitted that under the given circumstances, the petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable. 7. In reply to that, Mr. Ahmed has relied upon Sub-Section (3) of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-Section (3) of the said Code reads as follows :- (3) “Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purpose of this section, be determined by the Court.” 8. Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purpose of this section, be Page No.# 4/4 determined by the Court. 9. There is no doubt that the petitioners are not parties in the suit. They are strangers. Therefore, they are not entitled to file application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the decree. They should have filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. This Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has correctly dismissed the application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such an application is not maintainable 11. Under the given circumstances, the impugned order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Barpeta in Misc.(J) Case No. 139/2016 does not require any interference of this Court. With the aforesaid direction, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant