Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010131632025 2026:GAU-AS:10289 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/220/2025 KANTI DEVI AND 2 ORS. W/O LAXMAN KOHAR, CHABUA COLLEGE ROAD, CHABUA, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 2: BISWAJIT GHOSH S/O LATE AJIT GHOSH A.T. ROAD CHABUA DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786184 3: SHYAMA DEVI AGARWAL W/O LATE SURESH AGARWAL A.T. ROAD CHABUA DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-78618 VERSUS CHABUA TOWN COMMITTEE AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CHABUA TOWN COMMITTEE, N.H. 37, CHABUA, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786184 2.1:SMTI. AROTI ROY W/O LATE ANIL KUMAR ROY CHABUA TOWN DAILY MARKET CHABUA P.O. AND P.S.- CHABUA MOUZA- CHABUA TOWN DIST- DIBRUGARH Page No.# 2/7 2.2:ARUN ROY S/O LATE ANIL KUMAR ROY CHABUA TOWN DAILY MARKET CHABUA P.O. AND P.S.- CHABUA MOUZA- CHABUA TOWN DIST- DIBRUGARH 2.3:AJIT ROY S/O LATE ANIL KUMAR ROY CHABUA TOWN DAILY MARKET CHABUA P.O. AND P.S.- CHABUA MOUZA- CHABUA TOWN DIST- DIBRUGARH 2.4:ASHIT ROY S/O LATE ANIL KUMAR ROY CHABUA TOWN DAILY MARKET CHABUA P.O. AND P.S.- CHABUA MOUZA- CHABUA TOWN DIST- DIBRUGARH 2.5:SMTI. ARPONA ROY D/O LATE ANIL KUMAR ROY CHABUA TOWN DAILY MARKET CHABUA P.O. AND P.S.- CHABUA MOUZA- CHABUA TOWN DIST- DIBRUGARH 3:ARUN KUMAR ROY S/O LATE ANIL KUMAR ROY D WARD NO. 9 P.O. AND P.S.- CHABUA DIST- DIBRUGARH 4:RAJENDRA PRASAD SHAH S/O LATE FIRANGI SHAH DAILY BAZAR CHABUA P.O. AND P.S.- CHABUA DIST- DIBRUGARH 5:ON THE DEATH OF MD HANIF Page No.# 3/7 HIS LEGAL HEIRS NA 5.1:MUSTAK HUSSAIN S/O MD. HAFIN 5.2:NAZMA BEGUM D/O MD. HAFIN 5.3:HUSNARA BEGUM D/O MD. HAFIN 5.4:ASMA BEGUM D/O MD. HAFIN ALL ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE MD HANIF ADDRESS ALL HAVE THE COMMON ADDRESS DAILY BAZAR CHABUA P.O. AND P.S. CHABUA DIST. DIBRUGHAR 6:RAHAMUDDIN ANSSARI S/O LATE BUDHALI ANSARI DAILY BAZAR CHABUA P.O. AND P.S.- CHABUA DIST- DIBRUGAR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAMARIA, MR N M DEKA,MR M M ZAMAN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A K GUPTA (FOR CAVEATOR), J P BAISHYA(R2.2,2.3,3,4,6),MR. JITU SAIKIA(R2.2,2.3,3,4,6),MR. S D PURKAYASTHA(R2.2,2.3,3,4,6),MR. P SARMAH(R5.1),MR R CHAKRAVORTY(R5.1),R BASUMATARY(R2.2,2.3,3,4,6),MR. B NATH(R2.2,2.3,4,6),MR. C SHARMA (R-1),S K PODDAR(R-1),MR K J SAIKIA (FOR CAVEATOR) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 23.07.2026 Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. K. Poddar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. S. D. Page No.# 4/7 Purkayastha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 3, 4 & 6 and Mr. R. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5.1 to 5.4. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the Order dated 27.05.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dibrugarh, Assam (hereinafter, ‘Executing Court’), in Title Execution Case No. 02/2017, of T.S. No. 96/2014. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 27.05.2025, the learned Executing Court has directed to execute the decree passed by the Court in T.S. No. 96/2014, dated 27.03.2017. 4. Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while directing the Civil Nazir to execute the decree, the learned Executing Court has gone beyond the decree, and that there is inconsistency between the judgment and decree and the decree has to be corrected. His further contention is that the execution can proceed only in accordance with the judgment and that the decree is not an independent adjudication. 4.1 Mr. Chamaria further submits that if the decree grants relief not granted in the judgment and omits relief expressly granted in the judgment, alters the rights declared by the judgment, imposes additional obligations, modifies boundaries, measurements, property descriptions or monetary liability contrary to the judgment, then such a decree is illegal and such a decree cannot be executed against the judgment debtor. 4.2 In support of his submission, Mr. Chamaria has referred to three decisions Page No.# 5/7 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ꟷ (i) Topanmal Chhotamal Vs. Kundomal Gangaram, reported in AIR 1960 SC 388; (ii) Bhavan Vaja Vs. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 40; and (iii) State of Punjab Vs. Krishan Dayal Sharma, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 292. Under such circumstances, he has contended to set aside the impugned order dated 27.05.2025, and to grant liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the learned Executing Court to correct the decree. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2.2, 3, 2.3, 4 & 6 and Mr. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5.1 to 5.4 have supported the impugned order. They have pointed out that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring the interference of this Court, in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, because alternative remedy of filing an application for correction of decree under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC and also under Section 47 of the CPC is available and having not availed the same, they cannot directly approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Poddar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the respondent No. 1 is ready to provide shop premises to the petitioners herein and they have been requesting to accept the same, but the petitioners have not Page No.# 6/7 been availing the same and the respondent No. 1 is bound to provide accommodation, to both the petitioners and the respondents herein, in view of the decree passed by the Court. 7. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order, dated 27.05.2025. 8. It appears that the primary contention of the petitioners is that the suit was decreed on compromise and the terms and conditions set out in the compromise petition becomes part of the decree and in preparing the decree, some mistakes have been committed, and what is not provided in the judgment, cannot be granted to the respondents herein. But, it appears that the petitioners, having not availed the alternative remedy provided under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC and also under Section 47 of the CPC, they cannot directly approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is well settled in a catena of decisions that when alternative remedy is available, the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court finds this petition devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 11. Stay granted earlier, if any, stands vacated. 12. However, it is being clarified that dismissal of this petition would not be a bar for the petitioners to avail any other remedy before the appropriate forum, under appropriate provision of law. 13. In terms of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 7/7 JUDGE Comparing Assistant