Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010095922026 2026:GAU-AS:7518 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/181/2026 THE ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED A GOVERNMENT COMPANY, REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, R.G. BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024 AND IS REPRESENTED BY MD. HASAN AHMED CHOUDHURY VERSUS M/S SMALL FARMERS AGRIBUSINESS CONSORTIUM AND ANR REGIONAL OFFICE AT JAIN COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, G.S. ROAD, NEAR DISPUR OLD POST OFFICE, GUWAHATI-781006 2:M/S MAISANG PRODUCTS PVT LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED/BUSINESS OFFICE AT HOUSE NO. 31 OPPOSITE CITY COLLEGE KHANAPARA NARENGI ROAD GUWAHATI-781022 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D DEKA, M DKHAR Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 29.05.2026 Heard Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By order dated 17.03.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sivasagar, in Misc.(J) Case No. 56/2025, arising out of Money Execution (Arb) No.21/2024, the learned executing Court was not inclined to issue direction for producing an un-registered lease deed, which is exhibited by the petitioner in the said Misc Case as Ext.2 and accordingly, petition no.57/2026 was rejected. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2026, referred above, the present application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Corporation has been set up for industrial development of the State. As, the owner of the land at IID Centre, Demow, the respondent no.2 was allotted an industrial land/ plot for setting up of an industry by executing a un-registered lease deed dated 06.03.2006. It is submitted that in execution of arbitral award for which Money Execution (Arb) No.21/2024 was filed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sivasagar, there is every likelihood that the said lease hold land be attached and sold on auction for realization of the decretal award. 4. Hence, the petitioner, who is the third party to the said execution proceedings, has filed and objection under Order XXI Rule 99 of the CPC, read with Section 151 CPC so that the arbitral award was not executable against Page No.# 3/6 the plot of land measuring 500 Sq. meters and in respect of the plant and machineries which were taken over by the AIDC Ltd. on 05.04.2023, and hence, no longer the property of the judgment-debtor. It is the said application which was registered as Misc.(J) Case No.56/2025. The decree holder, respondent no.1 herein had contested the said application and the petitioner in support of its case had filed the evidence on affidavit which was sworn on 06.02.2026, where reference is made to 8 (eight) exhibited documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per instructions received, the said evidence-on-affidavit was filed on 07.03.2026. 5. On 25.02.2026, the petitoner had filed an application under Section 151 CPC to go ahead with the planned auction of the properties taken over by the petitioner in terms of the lease deed dated 06.03.2026 and 24.11.2009. It is submitted that the property involved in application is not covered by the lease dated 24.11.2009. On the same date, the petitioner had also filed petition under Order XI Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC, and Section 66 of the Evidence Act for issuance of direction to the respondent no.2 to produce the original of Ext.2, which is aforesaid unregistered lease deed. 6. The matter came before learned Executing Court and the said learned Court by order dated 17.03.2026, rejected the said application by assigning reasons to the effect that execution petition was by the respondent no.1 and the petitioner had filed the said petition for production of lease deed by respondent no.2. Therefore, as the said petition was by a third party, the learned executing Court was not inclined to issue direction. Moreover, the said learned Court has recorded that the evidence-on-affidavit was sworn before the Notary Public, Kamrup (Metro) but the exhibited documents were not Page No.# 4/6 marked as exhibits before any authority and accordingly, it was observed that the evidence-on-affidavit is not as per the Civil Court Rules and Orders of the Gauhati High Court. Moreover, the said learned Court has recorded that the petition filed by the petitioner does not indicate that the said learned Court had made any attachment of property of respondent no.2 nor it was stated that any decree passed by any Court has been transferred for execution within the jurisdiction of the said learned Court and it was recorded that the petitioner had not taken any steps for issuance of notice on respondent no.2 in connection with Misc.(J) Case No.56/2025, and accordingly, the petition was rejected. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the objection for execution would require to be tried as suit. Therefore, the application which was filed under Order XI Rule 12 to call for the original of the said Ext.2, was also required to be adjudicated. 8. In this regard the on perusal of annexure-2 to the petition which is a photocopy of the lease agreement dated 06.03.2006, it is seen that the said lease agreement was for handing over the property mentioned herein for a lease for term of 60(sixty) years from 05.09.2005. It does not appear from the said document that the lease agreement was a registered lease agreement. Therefore, there appears to be bar under Clause (c) Section 47 of the Registration Act for reading such un-registered lease deed which is required to compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act to be read in evidence. Moreover, it is seen that before filing of the evidence-on- affidavit, the petitioner had not taken step or any leave of the learned executing Court for taking steps to call for the original exhibit. In this case the Page No.# 5/6 evidence was filed first and the application for calling for the records followed the filing of evidence. In the evidence-on-affidavit, it is not reflected that Ext.2 was not original. It is also noted that it has not been stated in the evidence- on-affidavit of the petitioner that the original of Ext.2 was not in their custody. It is only in the application filed under Order XI Rule 12 CPC which is petition no.57/2026 dated 25.02.2026, it has been mentioned that the original of Ext.2 was under the power and possession of respondent no.2. There is also no statement that the unregistered lease agreement was not prepared in duplicate. 9. Be that as it may, as the lease agreement dated 06.03.2006, creates a tenancy by lease in respect of an immovable property for a term exceeding 1 (one) year, the same is compulsorily required to be registered under Section 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act. Therefore, there is statutory bar under Clause (c) of Section 49 of the Registration Act for receiving a non-registered lease deed creating tenancy for 60 (Sixty) years as evidence in respect of transaction effecting such property or conferring such lease. 10. Therefore, for reasons which are different from one arrived at by the learned trial Court, the Court is of the opinion that once a discretion by the executing Court has been exercised in refusing to call for the exhibited document and when this Court finds that the said document, even if called for, cannot be read in evidence, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the order dated 17.03.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sivasagar, in Misc.(J) Case No. 56/2025. 11. Accordingly, the application is dismissed at the ‘motion’ stage without issuance of notice on the respondent. Page No.# 6/6 12. The Registry shall transmit a copy of the order to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sivasagar to make it a part of record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant