Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J
Ful Mohammad @ Phool Mohammad Son Of Late Md. Harun – Appellant
Versus
Md. Ismile Ansari, Son Of Late Md. Yakub Ansari – Respondent
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
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
