Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J
Mostt. Kiran Devi, Wife Of Late Ajoy Kr. Singh – Appellant
Versus
Rajmani Devi, Wife Of Late Balram Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 06.05.2024 along with entire proceeding of execution case being Title Execution Case No. 03/2016 whereby the petition filed under section 47 of C.P.C. has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to decree passed in suit one execution case was filed being Execution Case No. 1/2007 which was dismissed for default. He submits that after five years fresh execution case being Execution Case No. 03/2016 has been filed and objection has been filed under section 47 of C.P.C. and the learned court has erroneously dismissed the said objection holding that objection petition is not maintainable. He submits that in view of above the impugned order may kindly be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that first execution case was dismissed for default and within time limit of executing the decree the second execution case was filed and only requirement is there that it must be filed within the limitation of executing the
The dismissal of an execution case for default does not prevent the filing of a subsequent execution case within the limitation period.
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.
Execution cases are maintainable when a valid decree exists, and challenges to such cases must disclose cogent reasons for maintainability.
The court emphasized that execution proceedings should not advance while a related miscellaneous case remains unresolved, ensuring orderly legal processes.
The executing Court cannot go behind the decree and must execute it according to its tenor, and cannot entertain objections to the decree's correctness in law or on facts, unless it is a nullity or p....
A court must issue reasoned orders for all applications, even after a case is disposed of, rejecting motions based solely on functus officio is contrary to natural justice.
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.
Executing court cannot go behind final ex-parte decree or allow new documents absent due diligence; Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction limited to grave injustice, not re-appreciation of evidence.
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
