Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010219362025 2026:GAU-AS:7823 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/420/2025 VEJAY SINGH sS/O- LATE CHANDRIKA SINGH, R/O- KACHUJAN TEA ESTATE, BORGURIGAON RANGAGORA MOUZA, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786125 AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF PARBOTIA FEDER ROAD, P.O., PS. AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS SMT KRISHNA NATH AND 5 ORS W/O- SANJIT KUMAR NATH, C/O- MRS PARUL SHARMA, RESIDENT OF PARBOTIA, NEAR BAWARI NURSING HOME TINSUKIA TOWN PO AND PS- TINSUKIA DISTRICT-TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786125. 2:SAMBHU SINGH S/O- LATE CHANDRIKA SINGH RESIDENT OF KACHUJAN TEA ESTATE BORGURIGAON RANGAGORA MOUZA PO PS AND DISTRICT-TINSUKIA PIPN- 786125 AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF PARBOTIA FEDER ROAD P.O. P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM 3:RAJESH SINGH S/O- LATE CHANDRIKA SINGH RESIDENT OF KACHUJAN TEA ESTATE BORGURIGAON RANGAGORA MOUZA PO PS AND DISTRICT-TINSUKIA PIPN- 786125 AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF PARBOTIA FEDER ROAD P.O. P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA Page No.# 2/7 ASSAM 4:GEETA PATEL D/O- LATE CHANDRIKA SINGH W/O- SRI AMIT PATEL RESIDENT OF CHTTARPATI VILLAGE PO AND PS-MOTIPUR DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR BIHAR PIN- 843111. 5:SMT PURNIMA RAI D/O- LATE CHANDRIKA SINGH W/O- BIJAY RAI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SINHAILA PO AND PS-MOTIPUR DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR BIHAR-843111. 6:SMT SANGEETA PATEL D/O- LATE CHANDRIKA SINGH W/O- LATE RATNESH PATEL RESIDENT OF PAKHRI PO AND PS MOTIPUR DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR BIHAR-843111 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K K DEY, MR V K BAROOAH Advocate for the Respondent : MR. U J SAIKIA (R-1), MS M DAS(R-1) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER 05.06.2026 Heard Mr. K.K. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1. 2. In view of the fact that the agreement for sale dated 09.03.2013, in respect of which a decree of specific performance was passed, the petitioner and the respondent no.1 are the concerned parties, therefore, the issuance of Page No.# 3/7 notice to the proforma respondent nos. 2 to 6 is dispensed with in view of the order which is proposed to be passed. 3. The respondent no.1 had filed the T.S. No. 42/2014 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia, praying for a decree of specific performance of contract for execution and registration of the sale deed in respect of the land which is more fully described in the agreement for sale dated 09.03.2013. The identity of the suit land is not in dispute. The schedule of the said land, as mentioned in the schedule to the said agreement is as follows: “A plot of land measuring 1600 square feet covered by dag No. 105 of periodic patta No. 23 (new) situated at Parbotia Feeder Road, Tinsukia under Tinsukia Mouza, P.O. P.S. & Dist Tinsukia, Assam being bounded as follows: Direction Boundary Dimension North : 15 ft wide existing Road (proposed to be 20’-0” wide- 32’-0’ South : part of dag No. 26 32’-0’ East: pat of dag No. 26 50-‘0’ West: part of dag No. 26 – 50-‘0’ “ 4. The said schedule is also replicated in the Schedule A land in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia, by judgment and decree dated 26.06.2023, by which the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent no.1 by holding the respondent no.1 was entitled to a decree for specific performance of contract of an agreement for sale dated 09.03.2013 in respect of Schedule A land; for permanent injunction against the defendants and the proforma defendants; for permanently restraining them from transferring the suit land of Schedule A to any person other than the Page No.# 4/7 plaintiff and from doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff; further ordering that the defendants and the proforma defendants being the legal heirs of the late Chandrika Singh, being joint owners of the suit land, shall execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to Schedule A land within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of decree; further ordering that in the event of failure on part of the defendant and proforma defendants to execute and register the sale deed, the same shall be executed and registered in accordance with Order XXI Rule 34 of CPC; and it was also ordered that the plaintiff would be entitled to the cost of the suit. 5. The sale deed was not executed and therefore, an application for execution was filed which was registered as T.EX No. 3/2024. In the said execution proceedings, the respondent no.1 filed petition no. 456/2025 dated 27.01.2025 under Section 152 CPC, amongst others stating that in paragraph no. 2 of the plaint, the petitioner had mentioned that the plot of land measuring 1600 square feet was covered by Dag No. 105(old) /26(new) of Periodic Patta No.23(new). Therefore, it was stated that it was a clerical mistake in not mentioning the new Dag number which is 26 along with Dag No. 105, which is now the old Dag number. The petitioner filed an objection to the said application and the learned executing Court, vide order dated 14.08.2025, passed in T.EX No. 3/2024, by taking into consideration that in the plaint there was a mention of the new Dag no. 26, took into consideration that the boundaries of the schedule land would remain the same and accordingly the Court had taken a view that the land is the same and new Dag no. 26 perhaps might be created, which would be known by the Revenue authority. Accordingly, it was ordered that the respondent- plaintiff be allowed to register the sale deed in respect of Schedule A land by consulting the Revenue authority, if a new Dag no. 26 has Page No.# 5/7 been created in respect of Schedule A land. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petition amendment would not be maintainable as instead of the decree holders signing the application, the petition no. 456/2025 was filed and verified by the counsel for the decree holder. Further, it is also submitted that although the respondent plaintiff was aware of the new dag as mentioned in the plaint, but no attempt was made to have a decree drawn up as per the new dag number in the schedule and no attempt was made to have the agreement for sale altered and for rectified. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has made his submissions in support of the impugned order. 8. In this case, there is no dispute to the fact that the agreement for sale dated 09.03.2013 was entered into and the schedule of land stated to the said agreement for sale was correct description of the land. If it is in public domain that in the State of Assam, from time to time, settlement process are carried out and there is every likelihood that existing Dag number could be altered to a new one in the new settlement proceeding. Therefore, the respondents desires that along with the old Dag no. 105, the new Dag no. 26 be also added in the decree for showing correct description of the land. I in the considered opinion of this Court would not amount to either novation of the contract or requiring rectification of the instrument within the meaning of the Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act. The inclusion of the new Dag number would not change or alter the validity of the agreement for sale dated 09.03.2013, based on which the decree was drawn up. 9. In this case, the learned executing Court had not committed any illegality Page No.# 6/7 in entertaining the application under Section 152 of the CPC, which was registered as petition no. 456/2025, by refusing to amend the judgment and decree, however, giving liberty to the respondent to have the sale deed registered in respect of Schedule A land by consulting the Revenue authority, if a new Dag no. 26 has been created in respect of Schedule A land. 10. It is by way of independent settlement process by the Land Revenue staff and for Land Revenue authorities that in place of Dag No. 105, a new Dag no. 26 is created. The same would not amount to the alteration of the schedule of the land in question. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the provision of Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC which provides as under: “3. Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property.- Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers.” 11. In this case, the schedule of the suit land contains the description of the immovable property which can be identified by boundary and numbers given in the records of settlement / survey. Therefore, if there is an alteration of the survey number, it would be permissible for even the learned executing Court to insert the updated survey number as per the record of settlement. It is not the case of the respondent decree holder that there is any alteration of the boundaries of the suit land. It does not appears that the objection to the amendment application is on the ground that it would increase the land holding from 1600 square feet to more than what has been decreed or it would alter the four boundaries or otherwise unsettle the consequent decree drawn up. 12. Resultantly, the Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Civil Page No.# 7/7 Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia did not commit any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned order dated 14.08.2025, thereby permitting the respondent decree holder to register the sale deed in respect of Schedule A land by consulting the Revenue authorities if a new Dag no. 26 has been created in respect of Schedule A land. 13. Accordingly this application stands dismissed. 14. Interim order passed on 26.09.2025 stands vacated. 15. Both the contesting parties who are appearing before this Court through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tinsukia on 24.06.2026 and by producing a certified copy of this order, await for further order that may be passed by the said learned Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant