HABIBUR RAHMAN Vs. MALAY BHUSAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Md. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. KK Dey, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) In this revision petition, the order dated 06.02.2013 passed in Title Execution Case No. 3/1998 by the court of learned Civil Judge No. 2, Cachar at Silchar has been challenged.

(3.) Against the present petitioner/ judgment debtor (for short, JD ), an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the respondents/ decree holders (for short, DHs ) was put to execution in Title Execution Case No. 3/1998. The said decree was with respect to the declaration of the decree holders as the occupancy tenant in respect of land covered by Schedules 2 and 3 and for confirmation of possession. Further, a decree of permanent injunction was also passed in favour of the decree holders thereby restraining the present petitioner/ JD from disturbing the possession of the decree holders on the decreetal land. On perusal of the Schedules 2 and 3 of the decree passed in Title Suit No. 26/1984, it is seen that the said schedules are shown to be vacant land and defined by boundaries. The decree holders after passing of the decree, instituted the Title Execution Case No. 3/1998. In the said execution proceeding, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC ) was filed by the decree holders informing the executing court that the petitioner/ JD had violated the decree of permanent injunction. However, executing court without deciding the allegation of violation of the decree of permanent injunction rejected the said application on the ground of its maintainability. The said petition was rejected vide order dated 21.08.2012. Thereafter, the decree holders/ respondents preferred an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC with a prayer to amend the schedule of the decreetal property by introducing the direction to demolish the standing structures like C.I. Sheet house and other articles with the help of the police. The said prayer for amendment was objected by the present JD/ petitioner. The executing court vide order dated 06.02.2013 allowed the said amendment of the original execution petition fixing 11.03.2013 for amendment and necessary orders. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/ JD preferred this revision petition.