Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Krushna Ram Mohapatra, J.
Kaupinidhari Mahima Samaj & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Mahima Gossain Bije & Ors. – Respondents
C.M.P No. 627 of 2022 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Decided On : 14-10-2022
CPC - Execution Case - 47 - 16.12.1944, 6.6.1945 - The court dismissed the revision petition challenging the order passed in the execution case. The court found that the objections raised by the JDrs. were not sustainable and the execution petition was filed in time. The court also found that the subsequent events and developments did not render the original decree in-executable. The court held that the executing Court should take all possible steps to dispose of the execution proceeding at an early date.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the execution of a decree passed in a suit filed in 1939-40, which was modified in 1945. The JDrs. filed an application challenging the executability of the decree on various grounds, including limitation, maintainability, and subsequent events. The executing Court and the revisional Court both addressed and dismissed the objections raised by the JDrs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objections raised by the JDrs. were not sustainable and the execution petition was filed in time. The court also found that the subsequent events and developments did not render the original decree in-executable. The court held that the executing Court should take all possible steps to dispose of the execution proceeding at an early date.
Issues: The issues included the executability of the decree, objections raised by the JDrs. regarding limitation, maintainability, and subsequent events, and the observations made by the revisional Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the objections raised by the JDrs. were not sustainable, the execution petition was filed in time, and the subsequent events and developments did not render the original decree in-executable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the CMP and directed the executing Court to take all possible steps to dispose of the execution proceeding at an early date.
JUDGMENT
Krushna Ram Mohapatra, J. - This matter is taken up by virtual/physical mode.
2. Order dated 11th July, 2022 (Annexure-8) passed in Civil Revision Petition No.4 of 2022 is under challenge in this CMP whereby learned District Judge, Dhenkanal dismissing the revision petition, confirmed the order dated 16th April, 2022 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Dhenkanal in a petition under Section 47 CPC in Execution Case No.63 of 1998.
3. Short narration of facts necessary for proper adjudication of the case are that Execution Case No.63 of 1998 has been filed by the Mahimia Gossain Bije, Mahimagadi, Joranda in the district of Dhenkanal, represented by Satya Mahima Dharma Dhama Parichalana Samiti and others (hereinafter referred to as 'the DHrs.') for execution of the decree passed in Original Suit No.62/152 of 1939-1940 (HC No. 21 of 1943) modified in Civil Appeal No.1 of 1945. On their appearance, present Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the JDrs.') filed an application under Section 47 CPC on 9th March, 2022 (Annexure-3) challenging executability of the decree on different grounds praying inter alia to drop the execution proceeding. The petition was dismissed vide order dated 16th April, 2022 (Annexure-4) by learned Senior Civil Judge, Dhenkanal against which Petitioners preferred CRP No.4 of 2022. The said Civil Revision being dismissed, vide order dated 11th July, 2022 (Annexure-8), the present CMP has been filed.
4. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioners/JDRs. submitted that the land in dispute pertains to Plot No.1397 area Ac.0.34 decimal, Plot No.1938 area Ac.5.00, Plot No.1399 area Ac.1.25 decimal, Plot No.1400 area Ac.0.50 decimal under Khata No. 13, besides other plots situated in mouza Joranda (hereinafter referred to as 'the case land'). The case land stands recorded in the name of Mahima Gossain Bije at Mahimagadi, Joranda, the Deity. OS No.62/152 of 1939/1940 was instituted by Baba Dinabandhu Das as Managing Marfatdar of Mahima Gossain for ejectment of Baba Krupasindhu Das. The said suit was discontinued after death of said Baba Krupasindhu Das. Subsequently, the said Suit, i.e., OS 62/152 of 1939-1940 (HC 21 of 1943) was revived by Mahima Gossain, the Deity through its managing Marfatdar Baba Dinabandhu Das and others against Surendranath Das and others, in the High Court of Judicature at Dhenkanal. The said suit was filed for declaration of title of the Deity, namely, Mahima Gossain over the disputed site as well as to remove the sheds and other constructions standing thereon and for a perpetual injunction to prohibit the Defendants from raising further construction over the case land. The suit was decreed on 16th December, 1944 with the following order.
'That the suit be decreed on contest in favour of the plaintiff Sree Mahima Gossami. The title of the said plaintiff to the disputed site be declared and the defendants do remove the sheds constructed by the deceased Baba Krupasindhu Das and themselves to a suitable site within the Matha compound which may be convenient for them and not inconvenient to their who have already for their sheds there and remove the Akhandabati lit up by the deceased Baba Krupasindhu Das to the site where the aforesaid sheds would be removed or to the Shunyamandir within the Gadi compound, within three months of this date are allowed to do so by the plaintiffs. If they are not allowed to do so by the plaintiffs they shall continue to remain where they are till they are allowed to do so. If within the period of 3 months from this date the defendants fail to do so, though allowed to do so, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to do so through court by taking out execution, and the defendants shall be liable for the costs of such removal. The defendants be also restrained from constructing any hut or other structure on the Gadi compound.
Both the parties to bear their own costs.'
The said decree was assailed by the DHrs. in the appellate side of the High Court of
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the objections raised by the JDrs. regarding the executability of the decree, including issues of limitation, maintainability, and subsequent ....
The representation of a collective interest in litigation ensures binding effects of decrees on all associated parties, irrespective of individual naming in the suit.
An ex parte decree that is cryptic and non-compliant with procedural requirements cannot be executed; necessary amendments to parties and relief sought must be pursued to validate execution.
The executing court must determine questions arising between parties to the decree without modifying it, and procedural irregularities should not defeat substantive rights.
The executing court is bound by the decree's terms and cannot entertain objections that do not pertain to jurisdiction, even if the decree is allegedly erroneous.
The court affirmed that a decree holder's rights must be enforced despite repeated technical objections from judgment debtors, underscoring the importance of expeditious justice in civil matters.
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
