IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
S.B.PD.SINGH
Raju Kumar Yadav @ Raju Yadav, Son of Teras Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Manoranjan Vishwash, Son of Late Ramesh Chandra Bishwash – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S. B. PD. SINGH, J.
Heard learned counsel of both the parties.
2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Application has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“a. For issuance of writ of certiorari or direction\order or writ for setting aside order dated 19-10-2024 passed by Sub- Judge, Senior Division-I, Bagaha in Execution Case No. 1 of 2021, whereby and where under the learned Court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
b. For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order\orders, direction/directions, for which petitioner may deemed entitled under the fact and circumstance of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent/plaintiff had filed Title Suit No. 95 of 2015 for permanent injunction against defendants/petitioners for not making any interference on the possession of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit properties. The above suit was decreed and decree of permanent injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, against which, defendants/petitioners/judgment-debtor filed Appeal No. 3 of 2021 and plaintiff/respondent/decree holder has filed Execution Case No. 1 of
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decree of permanent injunction is binding on all parties, and relief can be sought under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure ....
Objection to execution of decree – Even if Executing Court cannot go behind decree, it does not mean that it has no duty to find out true effect of that decree.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.