Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010181462023 2026:GAU-AS:8408 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/911/2025 NILESH AGARWALLA AND ANR. S/O LATE DURGALAL AGARWALLA, RESIDENT OF BAJRANG TOURS AND TRAVELS, SIKARIA COMPLEX, S.J ROAD, ATHGAON, GUWAHATI 01, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 2: SMTI SUNITA AGARWALA W/O SRI JITESH AGARWAL RESIDENT OF CHANDRA AGENCIES 13/32 GHOSKATTA NAYA BAZAR AJMER 2305001 RAJASTHAN REPRESNENTED BY THE PET. NO. VERSUS PRABHU DAYAL AGARWAL S/O LATE GIRDHARILAL AGARWAL, RESIDENT OF DA GAON(BAJRANG MILL) PO, PS AND MOUZA BOKAKHAT, DIST GOLAGHAT, ASSAM 785612 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N ALAM, MR D BARMAN,MR. A K SARMA,MR K JAIN Advocate for the Respondent : MR R SARMA, Linked Case : RSA/37/2025 NILESH AGARWALLA AND ANR. S/O LATE DURGALAL AGARWALLA Page No.# 2/5 RESIDENT OF BAJRANG TOURS AND TRAVELS SIKARIA COMPLEX S.J ROAD ATHGAON GUWAHATI 01 DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 2: SMTI SUNITA AGARWALA W/O SRI JITESH AGARWAL RESIDENT OF CHANDRA AGENCIES 13/32 GHOSKATTA NAYA BAZAR AJMER 2305001 RAJASTHAN REPRESNENTED BY THE PET. NO. 1 VERSUS PRABHU DAYAL AGARWAL S/O LATE GIRDHARILAL AGARWAL RESIDENT OF DA GAON(BAJRANG MILL) PO PS AND MOUZA BOKAKHAT DIST GOLAGHAT ASSAM 785612 ------------ Advocate for : MR. N ALAM Advocate for : MR R SARMA appearing for PRABHU DAYAL AGARWAL Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 12/06/2026 The instant appeal under order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC r/w Section 151 of the CPC has prayed for suspension of the impugned Judgment dated 04.05.2023 passed in T.A. No.1/2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Golaghat, during the pendency of the RSA./37/2025. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the connected RSA/37/2025 has already been admitted by this Court by an order dated 01.06.2026. 3. The learned counsel has further relied on the case of Mool Chand Yadav And Anr. vs Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, reported in 1982 3SCC 484. By relying on the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel submits that judicial approach requires that during the pendency of an appeal, the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. He has submitted that the order of the court cannot be flouted and it is not disputed that the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2023 in T.A. No.1/2022 has been passed in favor of the respondent and admittedly the name of the appellant herein have already been struck out and the name of the respondent has been inserted in respect of the suit land. However, learned counsel has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree has three parts and the direction of the Trial Court regarding permanent injunction restraining the respondent and their men, agent’s, employee, executors and assigns from disturbing the peaceful possession of the appellant over the suit land has not Page No.# 4/5 been executed till date. He therefore, prays that in the interest of justice, the impugned judgment dated 04.05.2023 passed in T.A. No.1/2022 by the learned Civil Judge, Golaghat, may be suspended during the pendency of the connected RSA./37/2025. 4. Learned counsel, Mr. P.P Baruah appearing for the respondents has vehemently objected to the instant application. He has submitted that under order 41 Rule 5 CPC a stay by the appellate court cannot be granted as the judgment and decree has already been executed. He has submitted that by the said provision of order 41 Rule 5 it is laid down that an Appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the appellate court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having being preferred from the decree. He therefore, submits that the appeal against the impugned judgment and award has been preferred but that alone cannot be a reason to stay the impugned judgment and award as the decree has already been executed. 5. This Court has considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the records. This Court has also considered the authorities relied upon by the parties. 6. No doubt, the judgment and decree dated 04.05.2023 passed by the Civil Judge, Golaghat, in T.A. No.1/2022 has been partially executed in as much as the names of the respondent have already been inserted with regard to the suit land. However, this Court also is also of the view that the appellate court has the jurisdiction to stay the execution of such decree upon sufficient cause being shown. This Court is therefore inclined to allow this application as dismissal of this application would lead to serious ramification. It is therefore directed that Page No.# 5/5 during the pendency of the RSA./37/2025 the impugned judgment dated 04.05.2023 passed in T.A. No.1/2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Golaghat, shall remain suspended. 7. The respondent are at liberty to approach this Court for vacation/modification of this order, if so advised. 8. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant