LOHIT PROKASH DUTTA Vs. KANAI DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order, dated 22. 3. 2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 1, Jorhat, in Title Execution Case No. 15/1979, whereby the learned Court below dismissed the execution proceeding.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present revision may, in a nutshell, be set out as follows : (i) The present petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, Sailadhar Dutta, instituted TS No. 2/1978 for eviction of the opposite party herein, as defendant in the suit, from a piece of land, which was described by boundaries and area in the plaint. The suit was decreed on 15. 9. 1978. The decree, so granted, had two parts, one for possession of the land by evicting the defendant therefrom and the other part was regarding realization of money. Pursuant to the Title Execution No. 15/1979, which the decree-holder initiated, the decree-holder received delivery of possession of 5 Lessas of land, though the defendant-judgment debtor was actually in possession of 15 Lessas of the decree-holder's land. As the decree was in respect of 5 Lessas of land, the judgment -debtor remained in the remaining portion of the land. The decree-holder, then, applied for amendment of the decree by an application, dated 11. 3. 1980, his case being, in brief, that it was following an inadvertent error that the measurement of the land was mentioned in the schedule of the plaint as 5 Lessas instead of 15 Lessas and that the mistake, being clerical in nature, be corrected. This petition was summarily rejected by the learned Munsiff No. 1 on 5. 8. 1981. The decree-holder, then, came to this Court with a revision petition, which gave rise to Civil Revision No. 64 of 1982. While the revision was pending in this Court, the decree-holder made an application, in the execution proceeding, praying for stay of the said proceeding on account of pendency of the revision petition. This prayer was allowed on 30. 5. 1980 and it was directed by the learned Executing Court that the execution proceeding shall remain stayed. This direction staying the execution proceeding was not vacated at any later stage. (ii) In the revision, the Court observed as follows :

(3.) I have heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioners, and Mr. D. C. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite party.