Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J
Shahid Ahmad, Son Of Hannan – Appellant
Versus
Mushreer Alam Alias Masoor Alam, Son Of Late Mashood Alam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 18.03.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.28 of 2022 whereby the memo of appeal filed by the petitioners under Order XXI Rule 97, 98 and 101 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C for setting aside the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-1st Dhanbad in Misc. Civil Application No.157 of 2022 (Arising out of Execution Case No.47 of 2019) has been rejected.
3. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not the party in Title Suit No.6 of 2008 which was decreed in favour of the Opposite Parties by the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-1st Dhanbad. He submits that the suit was filed for eviction and that has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. He submits that fraudulently the decree has been obtained against the petitioners. He further submits that later on the petitioners have come to
Sub-tenants cannot challenge the execution of an eviction decree against the original tenant as they are not necessary parties to the suit.
Frivolous petitions should not delay the execution of decrees, and the absence of a stay from higher courts validates execution orders.
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.
Rule 97 read with Rule 101 of Order 21 post amendment wherein the executing court has to determine under Rule 101 Order 21 of the Code that the question raised has legally arisen between the parties ....
The judgment emphasized the requirement for the court to adjudicate all questions of right, title, and possession in the property claimed by the objector under Order XXI Rule 97, and clarified the di....
A fresh execution case can be filed within the limitation period even after the dismissal of a restoration petition for a previous execution case, as per the provisions of the CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the conclusive nature of the determination between the parties and the decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC, and the application of this pr....
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
