Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010021352026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/39/2026 PRADIP PATANGIA AND ANR S/O LATE MUKHESWAR PATANGIA, R/O VILLAGE- DEKARGAON, P.O.- DEKARGAON, P.S.- TEZPUR, DISTRICT - SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN - 784501. 2: GUL KUMAR KALITA S/O LATE HRIDAYA KALITA R/O VILLAGE- MAZGAON TAMULI CHUBURI P.O. AND P.S.- TEZPUR DISTRICT - SONITPUR ASSAM PIN - 784001 VERSUS SMT ANISHA BARUAH W/O SRI MRIDUL BARUAH, R/O VILL- CHEPANA KUBUA, MOUZA- KAZIRANGA, P.O. AND P.S.- BOKAKHAT, DIST- GOLAGHAT (ASSAM), PIN- 785069, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT R/O. VILL- MAZGAON, NABAPUR, MOUZA- BHAIRABPAD, P.O. AND P.S.- TEZPUR, DIST.- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784001. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D C K HAZARIKA, MR N C K HAZARIKA,MS J BEZBARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : MR G CHOUDHURY, MR ARINDAM BARUAH,MS M N KONYAK Page No.# 2/3 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 28.08.2026 Heard Mr. N.C.K. Hazarika, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Choudhury, the learned counsel representing the sole respondent. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Sonitpur at Tezpur in Money Execution Case No.06/2024. 3. The petitioners are the judgment debtors. They have filed the first appeal being Money Appeal No.02/2025 in the court of the Addl. District Judge (FTC), Sonitpur, Tezpur. 4. Before filing of the appeal, the judgment debtors had already filed the Money Execution Case No.06/2024. The decree holder had filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) praying attachment of movable properties of the judgment debtors. 5. The judgment debtors i.e. the present petitioners objected to the said petition and the said objection was rejected by the executing court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been filed. 6. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 7. This Court is of the opinion that there is no jurisdictional error committed by the executing court while passing the impugned order. The petitioners are advised to Page No.# 3/3 move the appellate court under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for stay of the executing proceeding till disposal of the appeal. The appellate court shall consider the prayer of the petitioners and pass necessary orders to that effect. With the aforesaid direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant