LAWS(GAU)-2008-1-32

LILI DUTTA Vs. LOHIT PRAKASH DUTTA

Decided On January 01, 2008
LILI DUTTA Appellant
V/S
LOHIT PRAKASH DUTTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order, under challenge, in the present revision, was, on 24. 04. 2008, passed, in Title Execution Case No. 15/97, arising out of Title Suit No. 02/78, by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Jorhat, whereby the learned Executing Court has rejected the objection raised by the present petitioners to the execution of the decree, in question.

(2.) THIS revision has a long history and the present impugned order has arisen in consequence of two different orders passed by the High Court, one of the orders having passed on 26. 07. 1998 and the other one on 14. 02. 2007 in CRPs No. 64/82 and 59/2005 respectively. The material facts, which led to the present revision, are closely connected with the events of the past and it would made appreciation of the questions, raised in the present revision, easier if the material facts, as mentioned in the order, dated 14. 02. 2007, and the relevant observations made therein are reproduced. With this end in view, the relevant portion of the order, dated 14. 02. 2007, is reproduced hereinbelow :

(3.) IN terms of the directions, given in the order, dated 14. 02. 2007, aforementioned, when the execution proceeding was, once again, taken up by the learned Executing Court, the present petitioners, claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased-judgment-debtor, filed a petition resisting execution of the decree, broadly speaking, on three grounds, namely, (i) the judgment-debtor, namely, J. D. Kanai Dutta had expired, on 21. 01. 2007, leaving behind six numbers of legal heirs, but the decree-holder had substituted only three of these legal heirs omitting thereby substitution of the present petitioners as legal representatives of the said deceased-judgment-debtor; (ii) that the decree is vague inasmuch as the decree, in question, does not give proper identification of the decretal land; and (iii) the original decree was in respect of five lechas of land and the execution of the decree in respect of five Lechas of the decretal land having been completed, there is no scope for execution of the decree in respect of 15 Lechas of land as is being sought to be done now.