Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010179792026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2957/2026 SASHIPROVA GOGOI AND ORS W/O LATE DEBAKANTA GOGOI, R/O FLAT NO JF, 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK C, PROTECH AKANSHA, JAYANTA NAGAR, NOONMATI, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP M, ASSAM 781020 2: JHARNA GOGOI D/O LATE DEBAKANTA GOGOI R/O FLAT NO J4 4TH FLOOR BLOCK C PROTECH AKANSHA JAYANTA NAGAR NOONMATI GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 781020 3: NAYANA GOGOI D/O LATE DEBAKANTA GOGOI R/O FLAT NO J4 4TH FLOOR BLOCK C PROTECH AKANSHA AJAYATA NAGAR NOONMATI GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 781020 4: RANA GOGOI S/O LATE DEBAKANTA GOGOI R/O FLAT NO J4 4TH FLOOR BLOCK C PROTECH AKANSHA JAYANTA NAGAR NOONMATI Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 78102 VERSUS SURINDER SINGH BHAMRAH S/O LATE SULAKHAM SINGH BHAMRAH, R/O AMOLAPATTY CHARIALI, P.S. AND P.O. AMOLAPATTY CHARIALI, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, SR. ADV., G KAUSHIK,MR R SENSUA Advocate for the Respondent : MR S KHOUND, Linked Case : RSA/124/2026 SMTI. SASHIPROVA GOGOI AND 3 ORS W/O LATE DEBAKANTA GOGOI R/O MADHAKALI P.S.- KHOWANG DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM. 2: SMTI. JHARNA GOGOI D/O LATE DEBAKANTA GOGOI R/O MADHAKALI P.S.- KHOWANG DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM. 3: SMTI. NAYANA GOGOI D/O LATE DEBAKANTA GOGOI R/O MADHAKALI P.S.- KHOWANG DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM. 4: RANA GOGOI S/O LATE DEBAKANTA GOGOI R/O MADHAKALI P.S.- KHOWANG Page No.# 3/4 DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM. VERSUS SURINDER SINGH BHAMRAH S/O LATE SULAKHAN SINGH BHAMRAH R/O AMOLAPATTY CHARIALI P.S. AND P.O.- AMOLAPATTY CHARIALI DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR R SENSUA Advocate for : MR S KHOUND (FOR CAVEATOR) appearing for SURINDER SINGH BHAMRAH BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 26.08.2026 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants, assisted by Mr. R Sensua, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. S Khound, learned counsel representing the respondent. This application has been filed under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC praying for stay of the Money Execution No. 11/2026 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dibrugarh. Mr. Khound has objected to the present application on the ground that the appeal should be heard early. Further, Mr. Khound has relied upon a judgment that was rendered in the case of U. Sudheera and others v. C. Yashoda and others, reported in (2025) 4SCC 215. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment is quoted under: “18. We take cognizance of the fact, that in some High Courts, there is a practice to order notice of motion, whereby even before an appeal is admitted, an opportunity is granted to the respondents therein to contest the case. In such a case, it is implied that the High Court is not satisfied prima facie with the case. Such dissatisfaction could be either for a reason that the case does not involve a substantial question of law or for a reason that in the facts of the case, the question of law, though substantial, would not warrant interference. In such cases, though the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 151 of CPC is generally empowered to grant interim orders to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, we are of the opinion, the court cannot grant any interim protection to the appellant, unless the substantial question of law is framed under Section 100 (4) or as per the Proviso. On the other hand, if the High Court is prima facie of the view that the substantial question of law involved would not require much time for disposal, the court is bound to frame the substantial question of law at the stage of admission and then order short notice. The High Court cannot use its inherent power under Section 151 in violation of the express Page No.# 4/4 mandates in other provisions of the Code. We find support to this view from the following passage in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal: (SCC OnLine SC Para 42). “42. The Code of Civil Procedure is undoubtedly not exhaustive: it does not lay down rules for guidance in respect of all situations nor does it seek to provide rules for decision of all conceivable cases which may arise. The civil courts are authorised to pass such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of court, but where an express provision is made to meet a particular situation the Code must be observed, and departure therefrom is not permissible. As observed in Maqbul Ahmed v. Pratap Narain Singh “It is impossible to hold that in a matter which is governed by an Act, which in some limited respects gives the court a statutory discretion, there can be implied in court, outside the limits of the Act a general discretion to dispense with the provisions of the Act”. Inherent jurisdiction of the court to make orders ex debito justitiae is undoubtedly affirmed by Section 151 of the Code, but that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the provisions of the Code. Where the Code deals expressly with a particular matter, the provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive.” I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. Early hearing of the appeal is not possible. Therefore, it is hereby directed that further proceeding of Money Execution No. 11/2026 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dibrugarh shall remain stayed till disposal of the appeal subject to deposit of 50% of the principal amount by the judgment debtor in the court of the learned learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dibrugarh within 4 (four) weeks. The decree holder shall have the liberty to withdraw the amount aforesaid after proper identification and verification. With the above, the interlocutory application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant