The court affirmed that prior judicial decisions addressed all claims raised by the petitioner, thus ruling that there were no grounds to stay execution proceedings under Article 227.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Jha, J.

Record taken up on mentioning being made on behalf of the petitioner and I intend to dispose of the petition at the stage of admission itself.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned senior counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by learned Munsif 1^st, Sasaram, Rohtas in Execution Case No. 06 of 2011 arising out of Eviction Suit No. 03 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the petition dated 13.03.2020 filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 29 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘the Code’) was rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the eviction suit it was the case of the plaintiffs/respondents that the defendant/petitioner was tenant of one Ramji Prasad Sahu from whom the plaintiff have purchased the property in question through registered sale deed dated 15.03.1996 for consideration amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four lakhs) and in this manner the defendant became his tenant. The defendant appeared and contested the suit claiming that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs was illegal transaction. Issues were framed and the parties led evidence and ultimately the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. Title Appeal No. 56 of 2011 was preferred by the defendant/petitioner. The appellate court confirmed the decree modifying the amount of rent. Second Appeal No. 11 of 2019 against the said judgment and decree of first appeal was dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2019. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 257 of 2020 in the court of learned Munsif 1^st Sasaram, Rohtas against the present respondents and others for declaration that petitioner is tenant of defendant 1^st set on month to month tenancy and defendant 1^st and 2^nd set have no right to evict the defendants from the suit property. Learned counsel further submits that in earlier eviction suit, none of the courts considered the issue that total area of old Plot No. 337 was 40 ‘kari’ (4 decimals) out of which defendant 2^nd set have purchased only 927.50 square feet which does not contain disputed shop in the possession of the petitioner and hence, the entire proceeding was vitiated and the respondents have no right to evict the petitioner from the suit land. Since Execution Case No. 06 of 2011 has been going on where Title Suit No. 257 of 2020 is pending, petitioner filed application dated 13.03.2020 under Order 21 Rule 29 read with Section 151 of the Code to stay the proceeding of Execution Case No. 06 of 2011 till disposal of Title Suit No. 257 of 2020. The respondents filed their rejoinder and the learned executing court vide order dated 29.08.2024 dismissed the petition dated 13.03.2020 filed by the petitioner which is under challenge before this Court.

5. Learned counsel reiterates that the none of the courts take into consideration while decree is being sought to be executed against 4 decimals of land, but the sale deed is only with regard to 2 decimals of land equivalent to 927.50 square feet and for this reason, the learned executing court should have taken into consideration this fact and considering the pendency of the title suit, should have stayed the further proceeding in the execution case. Moreover, as the title suit of the petitioner is pending in the same court in which the execution is pending with regard to the same subject matter, the learned executing court should have taken all these facts into consideration but it failed to do so and hence, the impugned order is not sustainable.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently cont