Property-Sharing Decree Still Executable After GMDA Rejected NOC Renewal: Gauhati HC Cites Unused Fresh-Permit Option, Available Shops

In brief

The question

1. Whether the change in building bye-laws and refusal to renew the NOC rendered the compromise decree inexecutable under Section 47 CPC.

The court held

The Court held that the refusal to renew the NOC did not make the compromise decree inexecutable because the settlement provided for seeking fresh permission and the specified portions remained available under the revised plan.

It also directed

Finding no jurisdictional error, patent error, or irregularity in the Executing Court’s order, the Court dismissed the revision and upheld the order dated 16 June 2026; any interim order in the execution case was vacated.

01Facts

The petitioner, a judgment-debtor in execution proceedings, challenged the dismissal of his application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which sought a declaration that a compromise decree dated 8 January 2013 had become inexecutable.

pp. 2–4, paras 2, 10–11

The decree, based on a settlement deed dated 13 December 2012, required the judgment-debtors to obtain renewal of an existing construction NOC or a fresh NOC, undertake construction, and provide specified portions of the building to the decree-holder.

pp. 2, 7–8, paras 6, 23–25

After GMDA rejected the renewal application and required a fresh application and drawings, the petitioner argued that changed building regulations made the decree’s original scheme impossible to implement.

pp. 3, 7–8, paras 8–10, 26

The Executing Court rejected that contention, finding that the settlement permitted an application for fresh permission and that the specified areas remained available under the revised plan.

p. 8 · ¶ 27

02Issues

i.1. Whether the change in building bye-laws and refusal to renew the NOC rendered the compromise decree inexecutable under Section 47 CPC.

pp. 6–7, paras 19–21

ii.2. Whether the Executing Court committed a jurisdictional or other reviewable error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 4, 12–13, paras 12–14, 35–37

03Law Applied

Section 47 CPC empowers the executing court to determine questions between the parties relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree, but the court ordinarily cannot go behind the decree; its inquiry is narrow.

pp. 10–11, paras 33–34

Under Haji Sk. Subhan v. Madhorao, an executing court may refuse execution where a change in law and its effect has made the decree inexecutable.

p. 9 · ¶ 30

Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University recognises that an executing court may entertain an objection where a decree is void or a nullity, or where a subsequent law makes it legally inexecutable, while emphasising the limited scope of Section 47.

pp. 9–10 · ¶ 31 · pp. 11–12 · ¶ 33

Article 227 permits supervisory interference with a civil court’s judicial order, but intervention is not warranted absent jurisdictional error or patent error or irregularity.

pp. 12–13, paras 34, 37

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 47

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that supervening circumstances may, in an appropriate case, render a decree inexecutable, but found that this was not such a case.

p. 9 · ¶ 31

Clause 2 of the settlement expressly required the judgment-debtors to take steps either to renew the existing NOC or to obtain a fresh one; GMDA’s refusal of renewal therefore left the alternative route available, which the petitioner had not pursued.

pp. 7–8, paras 23–26 · p. 13 · ¶ 36

The Court also upheld the Executing Court’s finding, based on the revised plan, that the specified shops, rooms, and basement area remained available for allotment to the decree-holder.

pp. 8–9, paras 27–28

The Executing Court had considered executability on the merits of the objection rather than relying solely on the rule against going behind the decree, and its decision disclosed no reviewable error under Article 227.

pp. 12–13, paras 35–37