HIRAK BARUAH Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G. P. Bhowmick, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

(2.) In the year 2012, the respondents initiated Title Execution No. 10/2012 against the present petitioners seeking for delivery of the khas possession of the suit premises by evicting the present petitioner and also for recovery of Rs.871.50/- being the costs of suit. The description of the property in the execution petition under Order XXI Rule 11 of the C.P.C. indicates changes from the one mentioned in Title Suit No. 45/1997 as the suit premises.

(3.) The petitioners raised objection on the ground that no decree was drawn by the learned First Appellate Court and under such circumstances, the decree passed by the learned trial court in Title Suit No. 45/1997 cannot be executed keeping in view the doctrine of merger and as such there was no decree for execution. On the other hand, based on the compromise arrived in the appeal, the landlord decree holder renewed the terms of tenancy for 10 years and a no objection certificate was issued by the respondent No. 1/ Secretary of the decree holder samity. As there was a fresh cause of action started with effect from execution of the new agreement dated 01.08.2004 nothing remained to be executed. The said objection was rejected vide the impugned order dated 10.03.2014 passed by the court of learned Munsiff No. 1 at Tinsukia in Title Execution No. 10/2012. While rejecting the said petition, the learned court below held as follows:-