JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. M.Pertin, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. T.Y. Bhutiya learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred by the petitioner against the Judgment and Order dated 23.03.2015 in Execution Case No. 36/2012, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate -Cum- Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) Aalo. 3. The background facts’, leading to filing of this petition is adumbrated herein below:- “In the year 1989, the present petitioner had purchased a plot of land, which is known as ‘MEME’ land (suit land), from late BenyumKarga, father of Shri Nyumge Kato. The suit land was originally acquired by Late Kirki Kagra and passed on to his son Late KitoKarga, and later on, to Late Benyum Kagra. The land adjacent to the suit land belongs to respondent Nyage Kato, who had acquired the same by exchanging land called YAMI to one HogamKarbak.Originally that land was belonging to one Late PagreBasa, and later on, it was inherited by his son Late Rego Basa. After that Late Goii Basa, son of Late Rego Basa sold the land to Late Hamo Kato and Rego Kato inherited the same from him.Thereafter, Rego Kato sold it to HogamKarbak. Then during the life time of Late BenyumKagra, one Keba was held between Late BenyumKarga and Late Rego Basa over the suit land on 22.04.1986, wherein boundary in between Meme Main Stream was shown by the original owner Late Rego Basa. Thereafter, the respondent had constructed one granary house over the suit land, which was already decided in Keba dated 22.04.1986. Thereafter, on the basis of Kaba decision dated 22.04.1986, the encroachment of the suit land was restrained by permanent perpetual injunction vide order dated 30.08.1988, passed by the Keba, which attained finality having not been put to challenge by any party. Thereafter, another Keba was conducted on 09.07.1990, wherein the Keba order, dated 22.08.1986, was illegally rejected and passed a decision in favour of respondent Nyage Kato. And though the land was under the title and possession of the petitioner, but the case was represented by the original land owner namely BenyumKarga from whom the petitioner had purchased the suit land. Thereafter, another Keba was conducted on 09.07.1990, wherein the Keba order, dated 22.08.1986, was illegally rejected and passed a decision in favour of respondent Nyage Kato. And though the land was under the title and possession of the petitioner, but the case was represented by the original land owner namely BenyumKarga from whom the petitioner had purchased the suit land. Therefore, the name of the petitioner was not reflected as party to the proceeding; however, the name of respondent was reflected in the Keba Decision. The said decision was not accepted by Late BenyumKarga hence the matter was referred to District level Keba by the Circle Officer, Darak and the Deputy Commissioner has fixed the Keba at district level on 01.05.1991, and passed the order affirming the Keba Decision dated 31.08.1988, and thereby resolved the land dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent remained silent for many years, and thereafter, all of a sudden started encroaching the boundary, and started cultivation upon some portion of land of the petitioner during March/April 2009. Then the petitioner had lodged one complaint before the Extra Assistant Commissioner (EAC) Kamba. Then the EAC had deputed one P.I. to accompany Gaonbura to Kato Village and directed to verify the original boundary vide order dated 18.06.2009. Thereafter, the report was submitted by the P.I. and boundary was demarcated. Thereafter also the respondent continued to do his illegal act. And then complaint was lodged again to EAC and the EAC passed an order on 21.04.2010, restraining the respondent from cultivation. But, despite restrain, vide order dated 21.04.2010, the respondent continued to encroach the land of the petitioner and then having found no option available, the petitioner has filed an application on 26.04.2010, for execution of various decision of Keba, which was transferred to the Court of District Judge, Yupia. The respondent had filed his written objection to the petition. But, the District and Sessions Judge, Yupia had remitted back the petition to the the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo and thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had endorsed the matter to ADC, Kamba. In the meantime the Deputy Commissioner had interpreted the execution proceeding and passed an order dated 12.02.2013, allowing the respondent to file written objection to the objection petition and issued one W.T. message directing the petitioner and the respondent to appear before him on 7th March, 2013. In the meantime the Deputy Commissioner had interpreted the execution proceeding and passed an order dated 12.02.2013, allowing the respondent to file written objection to the objection petition and issued one W.T. message directing the petitioner and the respondent to appear before him on 7th March, 2013. The petitioner then filed one writ petition before this court and then this court was pleased to set aside the W.T. Message and directed the parties to appear before the Executing court on 21.04.2014. But, due to separation of Judiciary from Executive, the Execution Case was transferred to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge, Aalo. But, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge, Aalo dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the execution petition beyond the period of limitation. Being highly aggrieved the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present petition.” 4. The respondent has submitted his affidavit-in-opposition and denied the each and every averments made by the petition in his petition. The specific plea of the respondent is that the petitioner had suppressed the material fact that the Keba decisions dated 22.04.1986 and 30.08.1988 which the petitioner had sought to be executed had been set aside by subsequent decision of Bango Level Keba held on 09.06.1990, (Annexure-2) which was also approved by the Circle Officer Darek, vide order dated 09.07.1990, and as such there was no executable decree in favour of the revision petitioner. It is also stated in none of the Keba held on 22.04.1986, 30.08.1988 and 09.06.1990, the petitioner was a party. It is also stated that no Keba was conducted on 02.07.1991 and the Keba decision dated 09.06.1990 has attained finality. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 5. The petitioner has submitted reply to the affidavit-in-opposition denying the assertions made therein. 6. Mr. M. Pertin, the learned senior counsel submits that the learned court below has failed to consider the materials placed on record and that the petitioner has locus standi to file the execution petition as after purchasing of the land the decree stood transferred into his name. Mr. Pertin further submits that the law of limitation does not apply to the proceeding. Mr. Pertin further submits that the law of limitation does not apply to the proceeding. It is further submitted that the Keba decision was taken in the year 1991, and the verification was done on 8th June, 2009 and the execution petition was filed on 26.04.2010, which were well within the period of limitation. Therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, Mr. T.T. Tara, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity and as such no interference of the impugned order is called for. It is further submitted that therelies appeal against the order and as such this revision is not maintainable. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 8. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. Also I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2010, passed in Execution Case No. 36/2012, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) Aalo. 9. It appears from the record that while deciding the petition the learned court below has framed following two issues:- (i) Whether the execution applicants are decree holders having locus standi to file the execution application under law or not ? (ii) Whether the execution application is filed within the law of limitation or not ? 10. So far the issue No.(i) is concerned the learned court below found and held that it has found no legal instrument of sale/purchase and transfer of “MEME’, the suit land between the original decree holder-Late Benyum Karga and the execution applicant/decree holder, by following due process of law of transfer of property. And in absence of such required legal document the decree holders have no locus standi to file the execution application in the capacity of transferee decree holder u/s 146 CPC. 11. A careful perusal of the Keba decision dated 22.04.1986, and subsequent decision dated 30.08.1988, passed by the Keba, which are enclosed with the petition as Annexure-2 and 3, reveals that the execution applicant, nowhere in the said decisions, was a party. But, as per Mr. Pertin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has purchased the same in the year 1989, from Late Benyum Karga, the original decree holder of 22.04.1986 and 30.08.1988. But, as per Mr. Pertin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has purchased the same in the year 1989, from Late Benyum Karga, the original decree holder of 22.04.1986 and 30.08.1988. But, neither from the documents placed on record nor from the record of the learned court below, I find any document to establish the said claim. Mr. M. Pertin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, to pointed query of this court, during hearing, fairly submitted that there was no documentation as at the relevant point of time barter system was prevalent and everything was done verbally. Thus, admittedly, there was no such document to support the claim of the petitioner. Further, it appears that the respondent is already in possession of the said land as he had purchased the same from one Hogam Karbak in the year 1980 as per the affidavit filed by said Hogam Karbak on 27.12.2012. 12. Moreover, it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition that Keba decisions dated 22.04.1986 and 30.08.1988,which the petitioner had sought to be executed, had been set aside by subsequent decision of Bango Level Keba held on 09.06.1990, (Annexure-2) which was also approved by the Circle Officer Darek, vide order dated 09.07.1990. Though it is stated in the petition that on 09.06.1990, Late Benyyum Karga submitted one application before the D.C. Aalo for holding re-keba on the same issue and accordingly order was issued for holding Keba on 01.05.1991, yet no Keba was held on that day due to absence of Hogum Karbak. Thereafter, the respondent has submitted one application on 30.04.1991 before the D.C. Aalo requesting for postponement of Keba on 01.05.1991, and also to issued summon to the members, who were present in the Keba held on 09.06.1990. Then in absence of respondent on 01.05.1991, the Circle Officer (K) Aaalo had passed an order No. JK-DRK/9430 dated 01.05.1991, holding that Keba held in 1988 shall remain stand. However, later on the respondent had filed one application on 29.04.1991, and then the Circle Officer was pleased to cancel the order dated 01.05.1991, vide order No. DRK/9430, dated 27.05.1991, (Annexure-3 series, Page No. 33 of the affidavit-in-opposition) having come to know about ground reality. Thereafter, no Keba was held and as such the Keba dated 09.06. 1990, attained finality. These facts, however, are denied by the petitioner in his affidavit in reply. Thereafter, no Keba was held and as such the Keba dated 09.06. 1990, attained finality. These facts, however, are denied by the petitioner in his affidavit in reply. But, the factum of setting aside of the Keba decisions dated 22.04.1986 and 30.08.1988, by subsequent decision of Bango Level Keba, held on 09.06.1990, which was also approved by the Circle Officer Darek, vide order dated 09.07.1990, was not seriously disputed. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances on the record it cannot be that there was any executable decree in favour of the revision petitioner. Being so, the finding, so arrived at by the learned court below cannot be said to have suffered from any infirmity or illegality. 13. So far the point No. (ii) is concerned the learned court below held that the instant execution application is barred by Article 136 of the Limitation Act, even though there is no specific provision in the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation 1945. It is not in dispute that the execution petition was filed on 26.04.2010, for execution of Keba decision dated 30.08.1988. Thereafter, on the basis of Kaba decision, dated 22.04.1986, the encroachment of the suit land was restrained by permanent perpetual injunction vide order dated 30.08.1988, passed by the Keba, which according to the learned court below, was not a perpetual injunction order but it was a decree like that of Keba decision of 22.04.1986. 14. Article 136 of the Limitation Act provides that limitation for execution of a decree is twelve years. If limitation starts from any of the dates mentioned above, then twelve years already elapsed. Though Mr. Pertin, the learned counsel for petitioner tried to persuade this court by submitting that there was verification of the land by the P.I. as per direction of the EAC, yet, the said submission left this court unimpressed in as much as it was clearly mentioned in the petition dated 26.06.2010 that the same was being filed for execution of the decree dated 22.04.1988. And as such the finding, so recorded by the learned court below, on point No.2, cannot be said to be suffered from any infirmity. 15. It is to be mentioned here that following conditions must be satisfied before revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court: a). A case must have been decided; b). And as such the finding, so recorded by the learned court below, on point No.2, cannot be said to be suffered from any infirmity. 15. It is to be mentioned here that following conditions must be satisfied before revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court: a). A case must have been decided; b). The court which has decided the case must be a court subordinate to the High Court; c). The order should not be an appealable one; and d). The subordinate Court must have: - (a) exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law; (b) failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it; or (c) acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 16. In the case in hand the petitioner has failed to establish any of the three conditions mentioned in (a), (b) and (c) of condition No. (d) above. This being the position I find the petition devoid of merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed. The parties have to bear their own costs.