Respondent number6 i.e. Laxmi Ram Bhuyan filed a Civil Revision CR No.423/1997 in the Gauhati High Court questioning orders dated 26.8.1997 and decree dated 17.11.1997.
With this order, the petition stands disposed of.
2003 1 SCC 197 .
This according to the appellant came to the knowledge of the appellant from the report of the Process Server dated 26.6.2003.
On 26.6.2003, according to the appellant, he came to know about the death of respondent number.13 and 24 in February 1999 and 1993 respectively.
On 2.8.2003 the appellant filed application for setting aside the abatement, substitution and for companydonation of delay.
In the event of the suit having been decreed by the trial companyrt if the appellate companyrt interferes with the judgment of the trial companyrt, the judgment of the appellate companyrt should precisely and specifically set out the reliefs granted and the modifications, if any, made in the original decree explicitly and with particularity and precision.
Order XLI Rule 31 CPC casts an obligation on the author of the appellate judgment to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, the reasons for the decision and when the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled.
We record the statements of the Ld Counsel and dismiss the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn.
It was inter alia numbered as follows The obligation is cast number only on the trial companyrt but also on the appellate companyrt.
By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge while dealing with application under Section 152 CPC declared the decree to be a nullity on account of death of respondent number.
An appeal was preferred which was numbered as Appeal number5/1984 and the same was dismissed by learned District Judge, Gauhati by order dated 30.1.1986.
During pendency of the same, some of the plaintiffs died and their legal heirs were substituted.
According to the appellant, the said suit specifically set out the cause of action against each defendant and the prayers in the suit were also specifically directed against the defendants in respect of the alleged holding in the scheduled properties.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Predecessors in interest of the appellant filed suit TS number26/1978 in the Court of Assistant District Judge No.1, Gauhati.
The said suit, inter alia, was for recovery of possession, companyfirmation of possession and declaration of title over the suit properties and for cancellation of mutation of names of certain defendants.
The Trial Court drew up the decree dated 7.4.1996 as directed by the High Court, but mistakenly set out only companyts without setting out the reliefs in the suit which had been decreed.
An L.P. CC No.2275/96 filed by the respondents against the judgment and order dated 18.8.1995 passed by the High Court was dismissed by order dated 8.5.1996 with the following observations The Ld.
The Second Appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed by the Gauhati High Court and the suit was decreed.
Steps be taken for execution of the decree.
Firstly, in the earlier round of litigation which resulted in the decision Lakshmi Ram Bhuyans case supra it was number pointed out by the respondents about the death of respondent number13 or respondent number 24.
Plaintiffs filed an Execution Petition before the Trial Court which was numbered as Title Execution Case No.
A Special Leave Petition was filed against the order dated 10.4.2001, by which the High Court rejected the review Petition.
If the suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt and in appeal the decree of dismissal is reversed, the operative part of the judgment should be so precise and clear as it would have been if the suit was decreed by the trial companyrt to enable a self contained decree being drawn up in companyformity therewith.
Plaintiffs filed a Second Appeal number80 of 1986 in the Gauhati High Court.
13 and 24 and the belated approach for bringing their legal heirs on record.
The Trial Court by judgment dated 11.1.1984 dismissed the suit.
On 17.11.1997 the decree was drawn up as per the order dated 26.8.1997.
4 of 1995.
They also did number point out about the death.
By order dated 29.9.1999 the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has missed several relevant factors.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have been advised to approach the High Court for recall of the order and he had instructions to withdraw this Special Leave Petition.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, dismissing the applications for companydonation of delay, setting aside of abatement and substitution of the heirs of the respondent number.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.8870 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The present respondents were the appellants in the appeal before this Court.
It is for the companyrt, decreeing the suit, to examine the reliefs and then companystruct the operative part of the judgment in such manner as to bring the reliefs granted in companyformity with the findings arrived at on different issues and also the admitted facts.
A petition was filed seeking review of the High Courts order dated 29.9.1999 in RP No.6 of 2000.
The plaintiff, being dominus litus, enjoys a free hand in companyching the relief clause in the manner he pleases and cases are number wanting where the plaintiff makes full use of the liberty given to him.
It was held that the appeal had abated and the judgment and order dated 18.5.1995 passed by the High Court in Second Appeal number80/1986 was a nullity and, therefore, application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC was number maintainable.
13 and 24 in the Second Appeal number80/1986.
The judgment is reported in Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan vs. Hari Prasad Bhuyan and Ors.
In the Execution Petition filed by the appellants objection under Section 47 CPC was filed on behalf of the heirs of deceased respondent number7 and the Trial Court by an order disposed of the said application, inter alia, observing as follows In the light of the above, I am of the companysidered view that the decree cannot be executed in respect of the E Schedule on the ground of nullity but the decree will be executable in respect of other properties as mentioned in the plaint except those in Schedule E and against the other judgment debtors.
