Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010157382025 2026:GAU-AS:5100 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/283/2025 DR. RAMESH KR AGARWALLA AND ANR S/O LATE HANUMAN BUX AGARWALLA, C/O M/S EYE CARE CENTRE AT KRISHNA COMPLEX, H.S. ROAD, DIBRUGARH TOWN, P.O., P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 2: RAKESH KUMAR AGARWALLA S/O LATE HANUMAN BUX AGARWALLA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT A2 KRISHNA APARTMENT ZADESHWAR ROAD BHARUCH-392001 GUJARA VERSUS THE AHMED TEA COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OFFICE AT BOIRAGIMATH, DIBRUGARH TOWN, P.O., P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH 2:NAZRANA SHAMEEN AHMED D/O LATE NAZIM UDDIN AHMED R/O K.N.C.B. PATH BOIRAGIMATH P.O. P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH DIRECTOR OF AHMED TEA COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. 3:NUMMEIR AHMED DIRECTOR OF AHMED TEA COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. OFFICE AT BOIRAGIMATH DIBRUGARH TOWN P.O. P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSA Page No.# 2/12 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA, MS S AGARWAL,MD ASLAM,MS. S. TODI,MR M SAHEWALLA Advocate for the Respondent : MS. S SARMA, MR. A. K. SARMA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA For the petitioners : Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, Sr. Advocate : Ms. S. Todi, Advocate For the respondents : Ms. S. Sarma, Advocate Date of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date of Judgment : 30.03.2026 JUDGMENT & ORDER 1. Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Todi, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. Sarma, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Dr. Ramesh Kr. Agarwalla and Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla, impugning the order dated 25.04.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dibrugarh, in Title Execution Case No. 18/2015 whereby the Executing Court had rejected the application filed by the present petitioners for directing redelivery of the possession of the suit premises to the present petitioners in terms of the judgment dated 24.06.2024 passed by this Page No.# 3/12 court in CRP No. 65/2000. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant revision petition, in brief, are that the predecessor in interest of the present petitioners were the tenant in respect of the suit premises of the present respondents. In the year 1993, the respondents herein instituted a title suit against the petitioners for their eviction from the suit premises and for recovery of arrear rent. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 101/1993 in the Court of learned Civil Judge No. 1, Dibrugarh. The said suit was decreed by the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 04.03.1998 directing the eviction of the present petitioners from the suit premises as well as for demolition of the structures over the suit premises and for recovery of arrear rent till the petitioners are evicted therefrom. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the petitioners preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh. The said appeal was registered as Title Appeal No. 15/1998. However, by the judgment dated 01.12.1999, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal finding no merit in the same and affirming the order of judgment and decree of the trial court for eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises. Thereafter, the widow of the predecessor in interest of the present petitioners, namely, Smt. Tarabeni Devi, challenged the order of Appellate Court by preferring civil revision before this court. The said civil revision was registered as Civil Revision Petition No. 65/2000. The aforesaid civil revision petition was disposed of by this court by its order dated 24.06.2004, whereby the decree passed by the trial court and the First Appellate Court was modified to the extent that the respondents would give a notice of thirty days to Page No.# 4/12 the petitioners before commencement of the construction and require the petitioners to vacate the premises within fifteen days and thereafter, upon completion of the construction over the suit land, the respondents were directed to offer an equivalent area to the petitioners at a fair rent. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.06.2004, passed in CRP No. 65/2000, the present respondents preferred a review petition before this court, which was numbered as Review Petition No. 99/2004. By order dated 22.02.2005, the aforesaid review petition was allowed and the CRP No. 65/2000 was restored and was heard afresh on merits. Thereafter, the High Court, by its judgment dated 05.04.2006 modified its earlier judgment and order dated 24.06.2004 by altering the notice period to be given to the tenant from thirty days to three months. It was further directed that in the event, after service of notice upon the petitioners, if it fails to vacate the suit premises within a month, thereafter, the respondents would be entitled to proceed with the execution of the decree. Thereafter, in pursuant to the directions of the High Court, the respondents herein issued notice dated 29.06.2006 to the petitioners and thereafter filed an execution case which was registered as Title Execution Case No. 14/2006. The petitioners filed an objection against the execution of the decree by filing application under Sections47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the executing court. Thereafter, by order dated 02.08.2007, passed in Title Execution Case No. 14/2006, the petition filed by the present petitioners under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. 6. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners approached this court again by filing civil revision petition against the aforesaid Page No.# 5/12 order. The said civil revision petition was registered as CRP No. 312/2007. The said civil revision petition was disposed of by order dated 25.06.2008, whereby this court granted two months' time from the date of the order to the petitioners to vacate the suit premises. 7. However, being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court of India by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23899/2008. The aforesaid SLP was disposed of by the Apex Court by its order dated 13.10.2008, whereby the petitioners were granted an extended time frame till 30.04.2009 to vacate the suit premises with clear stipulation that on failure to comply with the order by the aforesaid date, the respondent would take possession of the suit premises, if required, by the help of police. 8. Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in pursuant to the order of the Apex Court, the petitioners voluntarily vacated the suit premises on 30.04.2009. He further submits that the petitioners also intimated the aforesaid fact to the executing court as well as to the respondents on 27.04.2009 by issuing a letter to the respondents and submitting a petition before the executing court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fact that the suit premises was vacated by the present petitioners within the stipulated time as was granted by the Apex Court. It is also apparent from the report of the Nazir dated 18.05.2009 wherein it is categorically stated that at the time when the Nazir went to the suit premises for executing the decree, the present petitioners were not found therein, which itself indicates that they had vacated the suit premises prior to the said date. 9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that after vacating the suit premises, the petitioners were under impression that a Page No.# 6/12 multistoried modern structure would be constituted over the suit land. However, they found that the respondents had erected a low-cost Assam type structure and opened a commercial outlet there under the name and style of “Sports Spectrum” in violation of the order of this court dated 24.06.2004, passed in CRP No. 65/2000 and subsequent orders passed thereafter. 10. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners also filed a Title Suit No. 130/2010 on 16.11.2010, seeking restoration of the suit premises. However, the suit was dismissed by the trial court. 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that thereafter the petitioners initiated a contempt case against the respondents for non-compliance of the condition imposed by the High Court on the respondents. The said case was registered as Contempt Case (C) No. 267/2011. However, by order dated 03.11.2014, the High Court declined to entertain the contempt petition by making an observation that original decree passed in the title suit remains executable. Thereafter, to compel the respondents to comply with the directions issued by this court in CRP No. 65/2000, the petitioners instituted a Title Execution Case, which was registered as Title Execution Case No. 18/2015 under Order 21 Rule 11, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, thereby bringing to the notice of the learned Executing Court that the respondents in disregards to the expressed directions of the High Court had merely constructed an Assam type house and commenced commercial business instead of undertaking construction of multistoried buildings as envisaged in the decree. 12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that Page No.# 7/12 on 26.07.2024, the petitioners filed another petition which was registered as Petition No. 4979/2024, wherein it was brought to the notice of the Executing Court that respondents have constructed a double-storied building with C.I. sheet roofing on the first floor and are going to lease out the premises to a third party in violation of the conditional decree. Accordingly, an injunction was sought for against the respondents. However, the Executing Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)No. 1, Dibrugarh, by its order dated 25.04.2025, dismissed all the three petitions, namely, petition dated 19.10.2015, Petition dated 26.07.2024 and Petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 13. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the executing court had erred in dismissing the applications filed by the present petitioners as it did not take into consideration the fact that the petitioners have vacated the suit premises in pursuant to the directions issued by the Apex Court, hence, the respondents were obligated to comply with their part of the directions issued by this court in the CRP No. 65/2000, by its order dated 05.04.2006 by constructing the suit premises and letting the petitioners an equivalent area over which they were having possession prior to filing of this suit. 14. He submits that the Title Execution Case No. 18/2015 has been filed by the present petitioners for execution of order dated 05.04.2006 passed in CRP No. 65/2000 after it was restored in pursuant to the order passed in Review Petition No. 98/2004. As such, the said execution case has been filed well within the limitation period of twelve years and same cannot be regarded as time barred. Page No.# 8/12 15. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that the executing court has also erred in treating the execution case filed by the petitioners to be an application under Section 5(3) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, inasmuch as the execution case was filed in pursuant to the order passed in CRP No. 65/2000 on 05.04.2006, whereby the period of vacating the suit premises was extended by extending the notice period for three months. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners therefore submits that the impugned order passed by the executing court is liable to be dismissed. 16. On the other hand, Ms. S. Sarma, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the executing court has rightly dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners for restoration of possession of the suit premises in favor of the present petitioners as they have failed to comply with the directions of this court passed in CRP No. 65/2000 on 05.04.2006. She submits that the petitioners after the passing of decree in the original suit, never paid any monthly rent, arrear rent or even the decretal rent in pursuant to the directions of the court. Hence, they violated the conditions as envisaged in order dated 05.04.2006 passed in CRP No. 65/2000. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the CRP No. 312/2007 was preferred by the present appellants subsequently to CRP No. 65/2000 was dismissed by this court by order dated 25.06.2008, whereby two months time was granted to the petitioners to vacate the premises and to pay the current rent and arrear rent. However, neither the petitioners vacated the premises within two months nor paid the arrear rent and current rent and thereby violated the directions of this court. 18. She further submits that in the aforesaid order itself, this court has Page No.# 9/12 given an indication that the re-course is open to the petitioner under Section 5(3) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 to seek relief. However, the petitioners failed to approach the court within the period of limitation mentioned in Section 5(3) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 i.e., seven months and as such, the executing court had correctly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners. 19. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Apex Court, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. 23899/2008preferred by the present appellants had only extended the time up to 30.04.2009 to the petitioners to vacate the said premises without modifying any other terms or condition of the order dated 25.06.2008 passed in CRP No. 312/2007 or the earlier order dated 05.04.2006 passed in CRP No. 65/2000. 20. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that as the petitioners had failed to vacate the said premises, the respondent issued notice dated 29.06.2006 for vacating the suit premises in pursuant to the order dated 05.04.2006 passed in CRP No. 65/2000. She further submits that the petitioners also failed to vacate the said premises within the extended time frame given by the Apex Court, i.e.,30.04.2009. She submits that on perusal of the report of the Nazir, it clearly appears that the possession of the suit premises was taken over by vacating the suit premises in execution of the decree on 18.05.2009, with help of police by the civil Nazir. 21. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order dated 05.04.2006, passed in CRP No. 65/2000 has been merged with the order dated 25.06.2008, passed in CRP No. 312/2007 which ultimately merged with the order dated 13.10.2008, passed by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Appeal Civil Page No.# 10/12 No. 23899/2008 and the petitioners are not entitled to reclaim the possession again as they failed to comply with the directions to vacate the suit premises on receipt of notice issued by respondents on 29.06.2006. She submits that from the order dated 19.05.2009, passed in Title Execution Case No. 14/2006, it becomes clear that the possession of suit premises was delivered to decree holder on 18.05.2009. 22. The learned counsel for the respondents thus submits that the present revision petition filed by the petitioners lacks merit and has been filed with an ill-intention to grab the suit land illegally even after violating the Apex Court's order as well as this court's order. Hence, she prays to dismiss the instant civil revision petition. 23. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record carefully. 24. On perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the suit filed by the respondents in the year 1993, i.e., Title Suit No. 101/1993 was decreed on 04.03.1998. By the aforesaid decree, the petitioners were directed to hand over the possession of the suit property within the time stipulated in the notice to be given by the respondents which by order dated 05.04.2006, the period of notice was extended to three months. However, when the respondents issued notice dated 29.06.2006 to the petitioners to vacate the premises, the petitioners failed to vacate the suit premises. Accordingly, Title Execution Case No. 14/2006 had to be filed. Thus, it appears that in the year 2006 itself, there was a lapse on the part of the present petitioners to comply with the directions of the trial court as well as of the High Court passed on05.04.2006 in CRP No. 65/2000. Page No.# 11/12 25. Though, ultimately, by the order of the Apex Court, the possession of the premises was given to the respondents on 18.05.2009. However, possession was obtained by the respondents only upon filing of the Title Execution Case No. 14/2006 and it was not in terms of notice issued on 29.06.2006 by the respondents to the petitioners in terms of order dated 05.04.2006 passed in CRP No. 65/2000. Hence, apparently, there is non-compliance on the part of the petitioners of the order dated 05.04.2006 passed by this court in CRP No. 65/2000. 26. This court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that there is no patent perversity in the impugned order of the executing court justifying any interference by this court in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 27. Though, the petitioners have filed various cases in respect of the suit property after passing of the decree in Title Suit No. 101/1993. However, all the cases filed by the petitioners were dismissed with only rider that every time some extension of time was granted to the petitioner. However, there is no doubt that the petitioners have failed to comply with the notice dated 29.06.2006 given by the respondents in pursuant to the order passed on 05.04.2006 in CRP No. 65/2000. 28. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, this court is of considered opinion that this is not a case whereby gross and manifest failure of justice or the requirement of adhering to the basic principles of natural justice has been flouted by the executing court. 29. It is an accepted proposition of law that in exercise of power of Page No.# 12/12 superintendence, the High Court cannot interfere to correct mere error of law or facts or just because another view than the view taken by the courts subordinate to it is a possible view. In other words, the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be sparingly exercised. 30. Under such circumstances, this court is of considered opinion that this is not a fit case justifying any interference in the impugned orders in exercise of powers of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 31. Accordingly, the present CRP(IO) is dismissed with cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Abhishek Prem Digitally signed by Abhishek Prem Date: 2026.04.07 13:57:26 +05'30'