Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Ful Mohammad @ Phool Mohammad Son Of Late Md. Harun - Appellant
Vs.
Md. Ismile Ansari, Son Of Late Md. Yakub Ansari - Respondent
C.M.P. No. 184 of 2025
Decided On : 25-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Petition for quashing an order in Title Execution Case - The petitioner challenged the execution case on the grounds of maintainability after a decree was passed in favor of opposite parties, which the court found to be valid. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Civil Procedure Code - Section 47 - The execution case was instituted following a decree, and the petitioner failed to provide cogent reasons for its maintainability. (Paras 3-5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was a defendant in Title Suit No.18 of 2001, which was dismissed. An appeal was allowed, leading to the execution case, which the petitioner claimed was not maintainable without justifying the claim. (Paras 3-5)
Findings of Court:
The execution case was valid as a decree existed, and the petitioner did not challenge the appellate court's judgment. (Paras 5-6)
Issues: The main issue was whether the execution case was maintainable despite the existing decree. (Paras 3-5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the execution case was maintainable as a decree was in place, and the petitioner failed to show any illegality in the order. (Paras 5-6)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge-I, Rajmahal in Title Execution Case No.2 of 2021 arising out of Title Suit No.18 of 2001.
3. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 instituted the Title Suit No.18 of 2001 in which the petitioner was one of the defendant and suit was instituted for declaration of title and for delivery of possession through the machinery of the Court and the suit after contest was dismissed and decree is drawn vide judgment dated 26.07.2013 by the learned Sr. Civil Judge-II, Rajmahal. He submits that being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 preferred civil appeal being Civil Appeal No.21 of 2013 which was allowed by the judgment dated 04.03.2020 and pursuant to that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 has instituted the Execution Case No.2 of 2021. He submits in that case the petition under Section 47 read with 151 of CPC has been filed stating that the said execution case is not maintainable which has been wrongly rejected by the learned Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the decree is there and in view of the decree the execution case has been instituted and the learned Court has rightly passed the order as no cogent reason has been disclosed as to why the execution case is not maintainable.
5. It is an admitted position that the suit is instituted by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 being Title Suit No.18 of 2001 which was dismissed pursuant to that the appeal being Civil Appeal No.21 of 2013 has been preferred which was allowed in favour of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 herein and against the appellate court’s judgment, the petitioner herein is not moved before any higher court by way of filing second appeal or any other appropriate petition and the execution case has been instituted in which such petition has been filed and the only ground is taken that execution case is not maintainable and how it is not maintainable is not disclosed and the decree is already there and for implementation of the decree the execution case has been instituted and in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the order.
6. There is no illegality in the impugned order, as such this petition is dismissed.
Execution cases are maintainable when a valid decree exists, and challenges to such cases must disclose cogent reasons for maintainability.
A party not included in the original suit cannot claim rights in execution proceedings; courts must ensure all necessary parties are present to avoid frivolous claims.
Frivolous petitions should not delay the execution of decrees, and the absence of a stay from higher courts validates execution orders.
The dismissal of an execution case for default does not prevent the filing of a subsequent execution case within the limitation period.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the narrow power of the court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which limits objections to a decree only on the ground of it bein....
The court emphasized that execution proceedings should not advance while a related miscellaneous case remains unresolved, ensuring orderly legal processes.
Words “any person” is wide enough to include even a person not bound by a decree claiming right in the property on his own including that of a tenant not party to suit or even a stranger.
The executing court must execute decrees as rendered and cannot alter them; objections must be raised under prescribed provisions, and erroneous decrees remain binding until properly challenged.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
