The main legal point established in the judgment is that objections raised under Order 21 Rule 58 and Section 47 of the CPC must be supported by valid evidence of rights over the property to warrant interference with execution proceedings.

ORDER :

1. Heard on I.A.No.1 which is an application for grant of interim relief.

2. The appellants have filed the instant first appeal against the order dated 2-8-2023 (Annexure A/1) passed by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) in Civil Execution Case No. 165/2011 by which the objection taken by the appellants No. 1 and 2 has been rejected.

3. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the respondent No.1 – Vivek Kumar Singh has filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of the suit land Survey No. 337, area 0.80 RS situated at village Chathirma, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) against respondent No.2 Ganesh Been and the State. It has also been contended that despite service of notice, respondent No.2 Ganesh Been has chosen not to appear therefore, he was proceeded ex parte and ex parte decree was passed against him on 10.12.2012. Thereafter, the decree holder has filed execution case before the learned Executing Court on 08.04.2013, which was registered as Civil Execution Case No. 165/2011.

4. The learned Executing Court issued notice to the appellants wherein appellant No. 1-Laxmi Been has raised objection under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 47 of the CPC mainly contending that the suit land was given to one Vishvanath Been by the Rehabilitation Department, Surguja. The appellant No. 1-Laxmi Been is legally second wedded wife of Late Narayan Been who was son of Viswanath Been. It has also been contended that the objector was residing in her husband’s house and she is in possession of the house. The objector is an uneducated, rustic villager and she is not aware of legal procedure, therefore, all the works relating to property were carried out by the step-son Ganesh Been. He has done the mutation proceeding wherein mala fidely he has recorded his name and name of her aunts’ son-Patiram without knowledge of the appellant No. 1, as such he has made an attempt to deprive her from her legal right to hold property belonging to her husband. It has also been contended that the objector is also entitled to get share in the property and she was not aware how the defendant No.2 has executed the sale deed with others and when the execution proceeding was initiated then only it was revealed to her about the factual matrix of the matter. It has also been contended that Ganesh Been and Patiram have already done partition and now in the revenue records only 1.030 hectare of land is available in the name of objector, Bishakha and Patiram whereas defendant-Ganesh Been has executed the sale of entire property whereas he has only right to execute sale-deed with regard to his share only, therefore, the step taken by the respondent No.2 is against the interest of the present objector and the whole transaction is bad-in-law and if execution proceeding is allowed then he will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money, therefore, it has been said that the objection raised by the appellant No. 1 be kindly allowed and the execution proceeding may kindly be quashed.

5. Appellant No.2 - Bishakha has also raised the same objection and also reiterated that the respondent has not claimed any right of possession in the original suit, still decree of possession has been passed which is ineffective and execution of such vague decree is not possible and would also pray for dismissing the execution proceeding and would also claim her share in the suit property.

6. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 5-1-2022 has rejected the said objection and issued warrant of possession against the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order, has preferred WP227 No. 35 of 2022 which has been decided on 10-7-2023 (Annexure A/2) wherein this court has passed the following order:-

“5.Taking into consideration that without assigning any reason the learned Executing Court rejected the objections raised any the respective petitioners jointly, the order