Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010042822026 2026:GAU-AS:3575 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/69/2026 DAYANANDA PRASAD S/O LATE RAMESWAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF TEZPUR TOWN (NEAR GOPAL CYCLE STORE), MAIN ROAD, MOUZA-MAHABHAIRAB, P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR SADAR, DISTRICT- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001 VERSUS DHANPAL GOWALA RESIDENT OF REZPUR TOWN NEAR ELECTRIC SUPPLY, TEZPUR, MOUZA- MAHABHAIRAB, P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR SADAR, DISTRICT- SONITPUR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BISWAS, MS D DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 11.03.2026 Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order, dated 06.02.2026, passed in Title Page No.# 2/4 Execution Case No. 14/1999, by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), No. 1, Sonitpur, Tezpur (hereinafter, Executing Court). 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 06.02.2026, the learned Executing Court had directed the petitioner to serve the copy of the petition filed by him for summoning the bailiff and LRA. 4. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein has initiated the Title Execution Case No. 14/1999, for execution of the decree, dated 19.04.1999, in the year 1999. But, the same is yet to be executed for this or that reason, and ultimately, the learned Executing Court had directed the Civil Nazir of the Office of the Civil Judge, Sonitpur, to file a report regarding execution of the warrant, in order to give possession of the decretal land. Then the Civil Nazir had submitted the said report, and on submission of the report by the Nazir, the petitioner herein had filed a petition, being Petition No. 65/2026; for summoning the bailiff and LRA, who had accompanied the bailiff for identification of the decretal land, to examine them on oath in the Court. But, the learned Executing Court has directed the Decree Holder to furnish a copy of the said petition to the Judgment Debtor, the respondent herein. Mr. Biswas submits that by such direction the learned Executing Court has been delaying the execution of the said decree in the Title Execution Case initiated by the petitioner in the year 1999. 4.1 Mr. Biswas, further submits that the decretal land is clearly identifiable from the report submitted by the Civil Nazir and despite, the learned Executing Court has been delaying execution of the decree. Further, Mr. Biswas, referring to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Periyammal (dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others Vs. Page No.# 3/4 Rajmani and Another, reported in (2025) 9 SCC 568; submits that in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed for disposing of the execution cases within a period of six months from the date of filing. But, in the instant case, the Title Execution case was filed in the year 1999 and in the meantime, more than 26 years have elapsed and even then, it could not be executed; thereby, resulting in serious inconvenience to the petitioner and under such circumstances, Mr. Biswas has contended to allow this petition. 5. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order, dated 06.02.2022. 6. It appears that the learned Executing Court had not rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for summoning the bailiff and LRA, who had accompanied the bailiff for identification of the decretal land. But, the learned Executing Court had only directed the petitioner to furnish a copy of the same upon the Judgment Debtor and fixed the matter on 19.03.2026, for objection/objection hearing/N.O. 7. It is to be noted here that in the case of Periyammal (Supra), in para No.75, Hon’ble Supreme Court has re-affirmed the observation made in the case of Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418, wherein in para No. 42.12 it has been held that- 42.12. The executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay. (emphasis supplied) Page No.# 4/4 8. And indisputably, the Title Execution Case No. 14/1999, was initiated in the year 1999 and in the meantime; 26 years have already elapsed. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the learned Executing Court to dispose of the Petition No. 65/2026, filed by the petitioner, by a speaking order; after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and thereafter, to proceed with execution case in accordance with law and to complete the same as early as practicable, keeping in mind the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Periyammal (Supra). 10. In terms of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant