CRP 7/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R.SARMA. 1. Heard Mr. B.Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitione r and also heard Mr. Satyajit Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for the responde nt Nos.1 and 2 as well as Mr. P.S. Deka, learned State Counsel appearing on beha lf of the State-respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 115/151 of the C.P.C. read with Art icle 227 of the Constititon of India. 3. The order dated 23.12.2008 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1 at Guwaha ti in T.Ex. Case No. 49/06 staying the further proceedings till disposal of the W.P. ( C) No.6498/03 has been challenged. 4. The plaintiff/ petitioner obtained a decree in Title Suit No.127/92 agai nst the defendant and thereafter put the decree into execution. In order to dema rcate the suit land for proper identification, the plaintiff/decree holder app roached the Court for demarcation by a Lot Mandal and accordingly the learned Munsiff directed the Settlement Officer to get the land demarcated by a Lot Mand al. The Settlement Officer vide order dated 6.11.08 expressed his inability to depute a Lot Mandal to demarcate the land on the ground that the High Court by a n order dated 22.8.2003 passed in W.P. ( C) No. 6498/03 stopped the re-settlemen t operation in and around the land of village Kamakhya and 4 other villages of Jalukbari Mouza. The order dated 22.8.03 passed in W.P.( C) No. 46498/2003 rea ds as follows - In the interim, it is directed that the respondents, particularly respondent No.3 shall keep all re-settlement operation in and around the land belonging to Kamakhya Devalaya suspended and shall not permit any transfer of land concerni ng Kamakhya Devalaya. 5. On receipt of the said communication from the Settlement Officer, the le arned Munsiff by the impugned order stayed the execution proceedings by observin g as follows :- Now since the position is that execution cannot be carried out wi thout the assistence of Lot Mandal, and the settlement operation has been suspen ded by the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the execution proceedings have to be stayed until the disposal of the W.P. ( C) No. 6498/2003. This execution proceeding is accordingly stayed. 6. Admittedly, the plaintiff obtained a lawful decree on the basis of right , title and interest and he wanted to get his share in respect of the decretal l and by executing the decree. 7. By order dated 22.8.2003 aforesaid , this Court restrained the responden t No.3 for carrying out all re-settlement operation in and around the land bel onging to Kamakhya Devalaya and from permitting any transfer of land concern ing Kamakhya Devalaya. 8. In view of the above, it appears that the order passed in the W.P.( C) aforesaid, did not relate to execution of a decree i.e. demarcation of the decre tal land. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Munsiff com mitted error by stopping the execution proceedings till disposal of the W.P. ( C) No.6498/2003. 9. In view of the above ,the impugned order dated 23.12.2003 is set aside. 10. The learned Munsiff No.1 at Guwahati is directed to take appropriate st eps for execution of the decree within the terms of the decree as well as the o rder passed in W.P.( C) No. 6498/2003 for proper demarcation of the land by a Lo t Mandal. 11. Accordingly, the this revision petition is allowed to the extent of modi fication as indicated above. No cost.