Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030001082025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/2/2025 Sh. Laltanpuia (Now dead) r/b his legal representative Smt. Lalkhumtiri Renthlei R/o Zemabawk North, Aizawl VERSUS Sh. Darthuama (Now dead) r/b his legal representative Smt. Lalthakimi R/o Zemabawk North, Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Lalfakawma Advocate for the Respondent : Mr R Lalawmpuia BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO JUDGMENT / ORDER Date : 03.11.2025 Heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Murmu, learned counsel for the sole respondent. [2.] By filing this Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside the Order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Aizawl in Execution Case No. 22 of 2020 arising out of Lok Adalat Case No. 37 of 2009. Page No.# 2/3 [3.] Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although no timeline has been specified in the Lok Adalat Award dated 26.02.2010, the Executing Court held that the petitioner has forsaken his right as per the Lok Adalat Award for having failed to pay the settlement amount within the year 2010. He submits that although stand taken by the petitioner before Executing Court was that non-payment of the settled amount was on account of refusal on the part of the respondent to accept the payment. He, thus submits that the impugned order should be set aside since the Executing Court has gone beyond the prescription of the Lok Adalat Award. [4.] Mr. Ram Murmu, learned counsel for the sole respondent on the other hand submits that the respondent has denied the stand taken by the petitioner that an offer was made for payment of the amount of Rs.1.5 Lakhs to the respondent. He also submits that as per the agreement dated 11.11.2009 between the parties, area/portion of land to be sliced out was 24x12 square ft. However, the petitioner refused to accept the agreement arrived at previously and claimed a larger portion of land, which was not acceptable to the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent offered a larger area of 30x18 square ft. for a considered amount of Rs.3 Lakhs, which was refused by the petitioner. Therefore, it only appears that the petitioner was never willing to settle the matter amicably with the respondent and instead, occupy the entire land illegally without paying any consideration for the same. [5.] Having heard the learned counsels for the rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner that he had tried to pay the agreed sum of money on two occasions, but was refused by the respondent, has not received the consideration of the Executing Court. Likewise, the claim of Page No.# 3/3 the respondent that the land that was offered to be sold at Rs.1.5 Lakhs was not the entire but only an area of land measuring 24x12 square ft. as per the objection filed, has not been considered. Therefore, having regard to the provision of Section 47 of the CPC read with Section Order 19 & 21 of the CPC as well as the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act, it was incumbent upon the learned Executing Court to formulate the question to be determined by the Court executing the decree by applying the aforesaid provisions. The same having not being done, the matter is therefore remanded back to the Court of Civil Judge - I, Aizawl for fresh consideration in accordance with law. [6.] The impugned order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge - I in Executing Court Case No. 22 of 2020 is hereby set aside. Since the parties are represented before this Court, they are directed to appear before the Court of Civil Judge – I, Aizawl on 10th November, 2025, whereafter, the learned Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and bring the same to its logical conclusion. JUDGE Comparing Assistant