CRP 154/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B. LOKUR The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the M unsiff No.1, Sibsagar in Miscellaneous Case No.112 of 2008 (Title Execution Case No.5 of 2005). The grievance of the petitioner is confined to the dismissal of Applicat ion No.1815 of 2010 filed on 25.8.2010. It appears that the case has a long and chequered history and it has eve ntually reached the stage of execution. One Bhabadev Bhagawati, a tenant in the premises in Title Suit No.30/85 (the suit premises) died on 10.7.1994. Soon thereafter, his legal heirs were bro ught on record by an order dated 17.8.1994. The proceedings were contested by the legal heirs of Bhabadev Bhagawati and resulted in a decree. On 28.7.2008, the present petitioner filed an application bearing No.121 1/2008 claiming to be the widow of Bhabadev Bhagawati. According to her, since s he was the widow of Bhabadev Bhagawati, she should have been impleaded on the de ath of her husband. Since that was not done, the suit ought to have been dismiss ed and the decree declared as non-executable. Two years later, the petitioner filed an application No.1815 on 25.8.201 0 praying for permission to adduce evidence to show that she is the widow of Bha badev Bhagawati. Application No.1815 was taken up for consideration by the Munsiff No.1 a t Sibsagar. After noticing the facts of the case, it was held that application N o.1815 of 2010 have been filed after a gap of two years from the first applicati on. This was notwithstanding at least two orders passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.192 of 2009 and CRP No.385 of 2010 to expedite disposal of the proceedings wi thin a fixed time frame. On this basis, the learned Munsiff came to the conclusi on that the petition was not bona fide. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed by Rameswari Bhag awati claiming to be the widow of Bhabadev Bhagawati. She has filed the petition through her attorney Sanjib Bhagawati. Looking to the facts of the case, it is quite clear that the application filed by the petitioner is not at all bona fide. It is difficult to imagine tha t although her husband died in 1994 and all her children having been brought on record as the legal representatives of her deceased husband who died in 1994, th e petitioner was not at all aware of the proceedings pending in the Trial Court. It is only much later at the stage of execution of the decree in 2008, that the petitioner moved an application for dismissal of the suit and declaring the dec ree as non-executable. Thereafter, two years later, she decided to move an appli cation for adducing evidence to show that she is the widow of Bhabadev Bhagawati . It appears that although there is no finding in this regard, the petitio ner has been set up to somehow or the other frustrate the decree obtained by the respondents. This is notwithstanding the fact that this Court on two occasions directed the disposal of the execution petition and the pending applications wit hin a fixed time frame. Since the application is not at all bona fide, I am not inclined to inte rfere with the order passed. There is no reason to interfere with the order pass ed by the learned Trial Judge and, accordingly, I dismiss this revision petition . The learned Munsiff will make every endeavour to comply with the orders of this Court and expedite the disposal of the execution proceedings.