Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010224892025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/435/2025 ABDUL KUDDUS MAZUMDER AND 2 ORS S/O LATE ABDUL MALIK MAZUMDER, 2: NIZAM UDDIN MAZUMDER S/O LATE NUR UDDIN MAZUMDER 3: NAZMUL HAQUE MAZUMDER S/O LATE MAHMUDDUR RAHMAN MAZUMDER ALL ARE R/O SONABARIGHAT PART 1 P.O. SONABARIGHAT P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM VERSUS NAWAZ UDDIN MAZUMDER AND 7 ORS S/O LATE NAZRUL HAQUE MAZUMDER 2:DILWARA BEGUM MAZUMDER D/O LATE NAZRUL HAQUE MAZUMDER 3:ROUSHANA BEGUM MAZUMDER D/O LATE MONJURUL HAQUE MAZUMDER 4:ISLAM UDDIN MAZUMDER S/O LATE NAZRUL HAQUE MAZUMDER Page No.# 2/6 5:IMRAN HUSSAIN MAZUMDER S/O LATE AKLAMUL HAQUE MAZUMDER 6:SHAHIN MAZUMDER S/O LATE AKLAMUL HAQUE MAZUMDER 7:MILI BEGUM MAZUMDER W/O LATE AKLAMUL HAQUE MAZUMDER 8:ROZI BEGUM MAZUMDER D/O LATE AKLAMUL HAQUE MAZUMDER ALL ARE R/O SONABARIGHAT PART I P.O. SONABARIGHAT P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N DHAR, MR. R A MAZUMDER,MR. T U LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 22.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. T. U. Laskar, the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners impugning the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Cachar, Silchar in Title Execution No. 29/2015 arising out of Title Suit No. 55/1996. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the predecessors of the respondents had filed Title Suit No. 55/1996 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Silchar for declaration of their right, Page No.# 3/6 title and interest as well as for recovery of possession of suit land. 4. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by its judgement and decree dated 30.06.1995 passed in Title Suit No. 55/1996. 5. Thereafter, the predecessors of the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 who were plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 55/1996 preferred an appeal against the judgment of dismissal before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). The said appeal was registered as Title Appeal No. 38/1999. 6. The said appeal was allowed and decree was passed in favour of the appellants (the present respondent Nos. 5 to 8) by a judgment and decree dated 24.12.2001 passed in Title Appeal No. 38/1999. Against the order of the First Appellate Court one Razzak Ali and Naizuddin Mazumdar who were the respondents in the said appeal preferred Regular Second Appeal before this Court which was registered as RSA No. 96/2012. 7. The said RSA was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 19.12.2013 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 8. Thereafter, the decree holders instituted an Execution Case bearing Execution Case No. 29/2015. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after coming to know about filing of execution case, the present petitioners, who were not the party in the Title Suit as well as the Title Appeal preferred a separate bearing Title Suit No. 326/2022 before the Court of learned Munsiff No.1, Silchar. However, by order dated 02.08.2024 the Title Suit No. 326/2022 was dismissed for default against the said order of dismissal for default the present petitioners had preferred a Misc Case (Misc (J) Case No. 193/2024) under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 whereby the restoration of Title Suit No. 326/2022 has been prayed for. Page No.# 4/6 10. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application on 25.11.2022 in Misc (J) Case No. 225/2022, praying for stay of Execution Case No. 29/2015, till the disposal of Title Suit No. 326/2022. However, the said application was not disposed of by the Executing Court. 11. Thereafter, the present petitioners on 26.08.2025 had filed an application in Title Suit Execution Case No. 29/2015 on the ground that the application for restoration of the suit preferred by the present petitioners still pending and the outcome of the said application would have a bearing in the Execution Case No. 29/2015, however, by the order dated 10.09.2025 the Executing Court was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the present petitioners. The aforesaid order has been impugned in this Civil Revision Petition. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners are stranger to the Title Suit No. 55/1996 in which the decree was passed in favour of the respondents and in connection with which the Title Execution Case No. 29/2015 is pending. He submits that the Executing Court while passing the impugned order did not take into consideration that an application for restoration of the Title Suit No. 326/2022 is still pending and if the said suit is restored, it will have a bearing on the decree which is sought to be executed in the Execution Case No. 29/2015. 13. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Executing Court has dismissed the prayer for stay of the execution in Title Execution Case No. 29/2015 mainly on the ground that on the date of passing the impugned order, no title suit (T.S. No. 326/2022) was pending as the same was dismissed for default. Page No.# 5/6 14. The reasoning given by the Executing Court for rejecting the prayer for stay of the execution proceeding in the Title Execution Case No. 29/2015 does not appear to be unreasonable or unjustified. 15. The Apex Court has observed in the case of “Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajindra Shankar Patil” reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has observed that the High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of Superintendents under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with order of Tribunal of Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power at as a Court of Appeal over the orders of the Court or Tribunal sub-ordinate to it. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere only in order to keep the Tribunal and the Courts subordinate to it, “within the bounds of their authority”. 16. In the instant case, no application under Order 21 Rule 97 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the present petitioners, they merely sought for stay of execution on the basis of the fact that their application for restoration of Title Suit No. 326/2022 is pending. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Executing Court has rightly rejected the prayer for execution as the grounds shown by the petitioners for seeking said relief appears to be flimsy, whereas the respondents had obtained the decree, which is sought to be executed, after a protracted litigation. 17. In the instant case, there is no perversity in the impugned order. Neither it has resulted into gross and manifest failure of justice nor the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted in this case, which justifies interference by this Court in the impugned order in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Page No.# 6/6 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is hereby dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant