SANKARLAL AGARWALA @ BHARUKA vs SUMAN DEVI SURANA AND 3 ORS Advocate - MR G N SAHEWALLA, ,MD ASLAM,MR H K SARMA,MS. S. TODI,MS T J SAHEWALLA — CRP(IO)/99/2023

Case under Constitution of India Section ART. 227. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Of on 25th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GAHC010075012023

Filing Number

CRP(IO)/3897/2023

Filing Date

01-Apr-2023

Registration No

CRP(IO)/99/2023

Registration Date

03-Apr-2023

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Kalyan Rai Surana

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Kalyan Rai Surana

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

10244 - Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 209 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

25-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Of

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section ART. 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANKARLAL AGARWALA @ BHARUKA

    Adv. MR. K K DEY,MR V K BAROOAH,MR V K BAROOAH, ,MR V K BAROOAH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUMAN DEVI SURANA AND 3 ORS Advocate - MR G N SAHEWALLA, ,MD ASLAM,MR H K SARMA,MS. S. TODI,MS T J SAHEWALLA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-May-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Kalyan Rai SuranaView PDF

    Case Summary: CRP(IO)/99/2023 Court Decision: The Gauhati High Court dismissed petitioner Sankarlal Agarwala's revision petition challenging the trial court's order dismissing his application to stay execution proceedings. The court found no infirmity in the executing court's decision and held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal interest in the suit premises or business to justify staying execution of an eviction decree. Key Reasoning: The court noted that the petitioner left the premises in 1988/89 and had no documentary evidence of tenancy rights or business share. While the petitioner's plaint admitted that defendants were running the business "on his behalf," this was unsupported by trade licenses, tax records, or rent payments. The court emphasized that a suit filed in January 2020 to challenge a September 2017 decree appeared designed to frustrate execution rather than assert genuine rights. The court vacated its interim stay order and directed parties to appear for further proceedings on execution before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhubri. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-May-2026

    Top Of The List

    Honourable Mr. Justice Kalyan Rai Surana

  4. 20-May-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Kalyan Rai SuranaView PDF

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan KhaundView PDF

  6. 08-Dec-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice Parthivjyoti SaikiaView PDF

  7. 02-Jun-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice Budi HabungView PDF

  8. 07-Mar-2025

    Orders

    Honourable Mr. Justice Devashis Baruah

  9. 14-Feb-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice Devashis BaruahView PDF

  10. 14-Feb-2025

    Orders

    Honourable Mr. Justice Devashis Baruah

  11. 27-Jan-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice Devashis BaruahView PDF

  12. 21-Aug-2024

    Honourable Mr. Justice Robin PhukanView PDF

  13. 19-Jan-2024

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Malasri NandiView PDF

  14. 25-Apr-2023

    Honourable Mr. Justice Parthivjyoti SaikiaView PDF

  15. 10-Apr-2023

    Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF

  16. 10-Apr-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  17. 05-Apr-2023

    Honourable Mr. Justice Nani TagiaView PDF

  18. 01-Apr-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRP(IO)/99/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRP(IO)/99/2023 Court Decision: The Gauhati High Court dismissed petitioner Sankarlal Agarwala's revision petition challenging the trial court's order dismissing his application to stay execution proceedings. The court found no infirmity in the executing court's decision and held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal interest in the suit premises or business to justify staying execution of an eviction decree. Key Reasoning: The court noted that the petitioner left the premises in 1988/89 and had no documentary evidence of tenancy rights or business share. While the petitioner's plaint admitted that defendants were running the business "on his behalf," this was unsupported by trade licenses, tax records, or rent payments. The court emphasized that a suit filed in January 2020 to challenge a September 2017 decree appeared designed to frustrate execution rather than assert genuine rights. The court vacated its interim stay order and directed parties to appear for further proceedings on execution before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhubri. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case