Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE S ANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J
Syad Asif Hussain, Son Of Late S. Salimuddin Ahamad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 08.07.2024 and 27.07.2024 passed in Execution Case No.05/2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhanbad. The prayer is also made to maintain status-quo with regard to the suit property.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits the petitioners are having right, title, interest and possession over the suit property and the said suit property was purchased by the registered sale deed being Mouza- No.51, Plot No.3370 and 2484(P) area one katha eleven chhataks. He submits that the opposite parties are making hindrance and in view of that two petitions have been filed before the learned executing court for filing objection under section 47 CPC and for taking time to file the petition. The learned court has been pleased to reject both the petitions by the orders dated 08.07.2024 and 27.07.2024. He submits that the property is in possession of the petitioners and
Frivolous petitions should not delay the execution of decrees, and the absence of a stay from higher courts validates execution orders.
Sub-tenants cannot challenge the execution of an eviction decree against the original tenant as they are not necessary parties to the suit.
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.
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 amendment of a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 is not permissible if it alters the fundamental nature of the suit.
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.
The dismissal of an execution case for default does not prevent the filing of a subsequent execution case within the limitation period.
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
