Judgment · High Court

Heard Mr. SS Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. L. Sarma, learned cou nsel for the appellant and Mrs. MD Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. By this application, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the orders dated 19.1.09, 10.2.09 and 23.3.09 respectively passed by the learned Munsiff No.1 at Golaghat in Title Execution No.6/06, whereby the learned court below directed the decree holder to take necessary steps, for issuance of writ o f possession fixing 20.4.09, for execution report of Nazir. Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel pointed out that as per order of the learned c ourt below, the Civil Nazir and Lat Mandal went to execute the decree after the decreetal land was identified. However, the Naziar in his report dated 16.12.07 informed the learned court below that the measurement could not be carried out and Lat Mandal could not show the boundaries of the land shown in the schedule. Mr. Sarma by referring to the report of the court officials submitted that ther e was no vacant land in Dag No.2884 except the petitioner’s house standing there on. Therefore, the decree of delivering possession of 13 Lechas of land as desc ribed in Schedule -A could not be identified, and mere measurement of 13 Lechas of land in Dag No.2884, could not be said to be decreetal land. According to the learned senior counsel, ignoring the aforesaid aspect of matter , the learned executing court without even affording any opportunity to the peti tioner to raise objection to the report submitted by the Lat Mandal on 5.2.2009, in absence of the petitioner, passed the impugned order. Mrs. MD Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents submits that on perusal o f the order dated 10.2.09 it is absolutely clear that the decreetal land in ques tion is identifiable and decree holder is legally entitled to recover the posses sion. There is absolutely no doubt as submitted by Mrs. Choudhury that a litigant must be allowed to reap the fruits of litigation. However, while doing so, the cert ain valuable rights of the parties cannot be ignored. However, in the instant c ase, the only grievance raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner/judgment debtor was not given any opportunity of being heard on the report of the Lat Ma ndal dated 5.2.09 and the impugned order on 10.2.09 was passed in his absence. Apparently, after the report of the Lat Mandal, an opportunity ought to have giv en to the petitioner of being heard by the learned trial court, since the execut ion was supposed to be carried out basing on the said report, but it does not tr anspire that such an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, without lingering the discussion, I propose to dispose of this revisi on petition with a direction to the learned trial court to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his objection to the report of the Lat Mandal dated 5.2.09 and thereafter pass necessary order after hearing both the parties, cons idering the entire aspect of the matter, in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that an endeavour shall be made to dispose of the matter as early as possible. In order to avoid delay, parties are directed to appear before the trial court o n 4.1.2012. On appearance of the parties, the learned trial curt shall proceed with the case in accordance with law and shall dispose of the matter within a pe riod of two months from the date of receipt of the LCR. In terms of the observations and directions made hereinabove, this revision peti tion stands disposed of. Registry is directed to send back the LCR, immediately.