Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010273472025 2026:GAU-AS:7824 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/510/2025 SRI NARENDRA PAUL SON OF LATE NAKUL CHANDRA PAUL, RESIDENT OF RADHA RANI NIWAS, VILLAGE-PAROWA GAON, PO AND PSTEZPUR, DISTRICT- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN784001 VERSUS SRI BALARAM PANDIT SON OF LATE KAJAL PANDIT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GOTLONG, PO- KALIABHOMORA, PS-TEZPUR, DISTRICTSONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001 2:MD MOBIBUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE ABDUL HAMID RESIDENT OF VILLAGEKARALANI NEPALI GAON PO AND PS-TEZPUR DISTRICT-SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001 3:SMRI GOPA PAUL ALIAS GOPA RANI PAUL WIFE OF SAMIR PAUL DAUGHTER OF LATE NAKUL CHANDRA PAUL ALIAS NAKUL PAUL RESIDENT OF MARGHERITA TOWN NEAR RAILWAY STATION PO-MARGHERITA TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN-786181. ALTERNATIVE ADDRESS WARD NO.9 C.K DAS ROAD TEZPUR TOWN Page No.# 2/7 NARENDRA BILLA PO AND PS TEZPUR DIST SONITPUR ASSAM. 784001 4:SMTI DIPA PAUL WIFE OF SUBRATA PAUL DAUGHTER OF LATE NAKUL CHANDRA PAUL ALIAS NAKUL PAUL RESIDING AT MILANPUR REHABARI PO-PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI DISTRICT-KAMRUPM ASSAM PIN-781008. ALTERNATIVE ADDRESS WARD NO.9 C.K DAS ROAD TEZPUR TOWN NARENDRA BILLA PO AND PS TEZPUR DIST SONITPUR ASSAM. 784001 5:SMTI SUJATA PAUL WIFE OF PRASANTA PAUL DAUGHTER OF LATE NAKUL CHANDRA PAUL ALIAS NAKUL PAUL RESIDING AT MARGHERITA TOWN NEAR RAILWAY STATION PO-MARGHERITA DISTRICT-TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN-786181. ALTERNATIVE ADDRESS WARD NO.9 C.K DAS ROAD TEZPUR TOWN NARENDRA BILLA PO AND PS TEZPUR DIST SONITPUR ASSAM. 784001 6:SMTI MITHU PAUL ALIAS DEY WIFE OF ANINDYA DEY DAUGHTER OF LATE NAKUL CHANDRA PAUL ALIAS NAKUL PAUL RESIDING AT 6A CORNFIELD ROAD BALLYGUNGE Page No.# 3/7 KOLKATA WEST BENGAL PIN-700019. ALTERNATIVE ADDRESS WARD NO.9 C.K DAS ROAD TEZPUR TOWN NARENDRA BILLA PO AND PS TEZPUR DIST SONITPUR ASSAM. 784001 7:SMTI SARADHA PAUL WIFE OF PRABIR PAUL DAUGHTER OF LATE NAKUL CHANDRA PAUL ALIAS NAKUL PAUL RESIDING AT NO.2 DEBIGHAR MADHYAMGRAM POMADHYAMGRAM DISTRICT-24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL PIN-700129. ALTERNATIVE ADDRESS WARD NO.9 C.K DAS ROAD TEZPUR TOWN NARENDRA BILLA PO AND PS TEZPUR DIST SONITPUR ASSAM. 78400 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K SARMA, MR T CHAKRABORTY,MR. D CHOUDHURY,MS. A KHARBANI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S BISWAS(R-1,2), MS D DEVI(R-1,2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 05.06.2026 Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Biswas, for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Page No.# 4/7 2. In view of the order that is proposed to be passed, issuance of fresh notice on respondent nos. 3 to 7 are dispensed with. 3. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in T.S. Case No.90/2024. In the said suit the respondent nos. 3 to 7 were defendant nos. 1 to 5 respectively. The petitioner herein was the defendant no.6 in the said suit. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the there is a family dispute between the petitioner and the respondent nos. 3 to 7 which would be evident from the contents of the plaint of T.S. No.27/2023, filed by the petitioner which is annexed to this application as Annexure-3. The said suit is pending for disposal before the Court of learned Munsiff at Tezpur. 5. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 had filed T.S. No.90/2024 for specific performance of contract to compel the petitioner and the respondent nos. 3 to 7 to sell the suit the land and deliver the khas possession thereof. It is projected by the petitioner that the summons in the suit was received by the respondent nos.3 to 7 for themselves and also for the petitioner (defendant no.6). Accordingly, the suit was ordered to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. 6. In the course of the proceedings of T.S. No.90/2024 the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the respondent nos. 3 to 6, by filing petition no.3121/2024 under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the CPC had stated before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur, Tezpur, that the matter was voluntarily compromised between them. Accordingly, on 21.12.2024, the date on which the said petition was filed, a joint compromise decree was drawn up on the Page No.# 5/7 basis of the agreement between the parties, which was made a part of the decree and marked with letter “X”. The resultant decree was put to execution, which was registered as T.Ex. No.08/2025. 7. The case of the petitioner is that he and the respondent no.7, on coming to know about the execution proceedings, had filed joint application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 21.12.2024, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No.24/2025 in connection with T.S. Case No.90/2024, which is stated to be pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur, Tezpur. Moreover, a separate application was filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 26 read with Section 151 CPC, which was numbered as petition no.150/25, dated 04.04.2025, before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur, Tezpur, in connection with T. Ex. Case No.08/2025 for stay of the execution proceedings. 8. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur, Tezpur, in the proceedings of T.Ex. Case No.08/2025, by referring to petition no.150/2025, had arrived at a conclusion that Misc.(J) Case No.24/2025 was filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC did not furnish a legal basis for stay. Accordingly, it was observed by the said learned Court that this is only an attempt to delay the execution of the decree and therefore, held that the statutory requirement for invoking Order XXI Rule 26 of the CPC remains unfulfilled. Accordingly, the execution proceeding was allowed to proceed and the application under Order XXI Rule 26 read with Section 151 of the CPC, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No.24/2025 was rejected. 9. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.11.2025, rejecting Misc.(J) Page No.# 6/7 Case No.24/2025, the present application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. On a query of the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proceedings Misc.(J) Case No.24/2025 is fixed today for cross-examination of the witnesses. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayers made in this application on the ground that the decree was not a collusive decree and therefore, as the petitioner did not appear despite the service of summons, ex parte decree was sustainable. 12. In the considered opinion of the Court, the petitioner and the respondent no.7, for reasons assigned in Misc.(J) Case No.24/2025, had prayed for setting aside the ex parte decree. As the merit of the said application is being examined by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur, Tezpur this Court refrains from making any comment thereon, as it would prejudice either side. 13. However, having taken note of the fact that the application under Order IX Rule 13, which is registered as Misc.(J) Case No.24/2025 is on board of the learned Trial Court, which is being heard, if the decree is executed in the meantime, the petitioner would suffer great loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Moreover, in the event that the application stands allowed and during the execution proceedings, if the property is transferred, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and the petitioner shall suffer comparatively greater injury. 14. Therefore, the Court is inclined to hold that the impugned order Page No.# 7/7 dated 18.11.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur, Tezpur as executing Court in connection with T.Ex. Case No.08/2025, is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the said order dated 18.11.2025, rejecting petition no.150/2025 dated 04.04.2025, filed under Order XXI Rule 26 read with Section 151 of the CPC, is hereby set aside and the said application is restored to the file of the said learned Court for a fresh consideration. 15. As the execution proceedings is likely to cause comparatively more loss and injury to the petitioner, the further proceedings of T.Ex. Case No.08/2025, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur, Tezpur shall continue to remain stayed till the disposal of Misc.(J) Case No.24/2025 in connection with T.S. Case No.90/2024. 16. Both sides are directed to appear in the proceedings of the said petition no.150/2025 as and when proceedings of Misc.(J) Case No.24/2025 is disposed of. 17. The petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. 18. Under the circumstances there shall be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant