Authority: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

Order Date: 29.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Amit Sarin and two others, directors/officers of Perfect Motors Pvt. Ltd., residing at G.S. Road, Guwahati.
  • Respondents: Nasima Rahman and twelve co‑respondents, residing at Kumarpara, Guwahati.
  • The dispute originates from Misc. (J) Cases Nos. 621/2018 and 620/2018, arising out of Title Execution Case No.01/2010 concerning Schedule‑A, B, C, D lands.
  • The trial court (Civil Judge Sr. Divn. No.3, Kamrup (M)) passed a decree in favour of the respondents, including a preliminary partition decree.
  • The decree was appealed (T.A. 01/2010) before the Additional District Judge, which was dismissed with modifications, affirming the respondents' title, interest and partition.
  • Petitioners later filed an application under Section 47 CPC claiming title to Schedule‑X and Y lands (parts of Schedule‑B and C). The executing court dismissed this application.
  • Petitioners argued that the trial court should have sent the preliminary decree to the Collector for physical partition under Section 54 CPC, alleging illegal execution.
  • Respondents contended that petitioners purchased the lands during pendency of the suit, were aware of summons, and that a transferee pendente lite cannot resist execution, citing Supreme Court judgments (Silverline Forum, Amit Kumar Shaw, Usha Sinha).
  • The petitioners did not file any application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex‑parte decree nor a second appeal against the appellate judgment.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court examined Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits revision only where no appeal lies against the subordinate court’s order.
  • Since a second appeal was available against the appellate court’s judgment and the petitioners failed to file it, the High Court held revision under Section 115 was not permissible.
  • Both revision petitions (CRP/66/2026) are dismissed and disposed of accordingly; the earlier decree and execution remain effective.

Topics: Land Dispute, Revision Jurisdiction