Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J
Jagnarayan Yadav, S/o-late Sudama Yadav, – Appellant
Versus
Yadunandan Singh, S/o- Late Ram Srinagar Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard Mr. Rahul Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned counsel through video conferencing for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Akash Bhushan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5.
2. Notice upon respondent no. 2 has been validly served.
3. The petitioner has chosen not to substitute the respondent no. 3 who has left for his heavenly abode and that is recorded in th the order dated 11 November, 2024.
4. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the prayer is made for quashing the order dated 22.07.2024 passed in Execution Case No. 22 of 2013.
5. Mr. Rahul Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in Execution Case, the petitioner has filed the petition under Order 21 Rule 97 which has been admitted by the learned Court by the order dated 26.06.2024. He submits that execution case was proceeded in view of that, for stay of Execution petition under Order 21 Rule 26 read with Section 151 C.P.C, was filed on 18.04.2024, which has been decided by the learned court by the order dated 22.07.2024. He submits that the miscellaneous case is still pending and in view
The court emphasized that execution proceedings should not advance while a related miscellaneous case remains unresolved, ensuring orderly legal processes.
The dismissal of an execution case for default does not prevent the filing of a subsequent execution case within the limitation period.
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.
Equitable considerations have to be weighed in while entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Review Court lacks jurisdiction to stay execution proceedings initiated in another court, and attempts to delay possession proceedings through misleading filings may result in dismissal with cost....
Frivolous petitions should not delay the execution of decrees, and the absence of a stay from higher courts validates execution orders.
The court has the jurisdiction to issue a direction for the parties to file details of their assets under Order XXI Rule 26 of the CPC.
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.
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
