NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP (227) No. 280 of 2024 • Samaru Kenwat (Died) Through Legal Representative Smt.

Tulsa Bai Kenwat W/o Samaru Kenwat Aged About 53 Years R/o In Front Of Anand Goods Company, Gali, No.1, Fafadeah, Raipur, Tehsil District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner Versus • Smt. Dai Ben (Died) Through Legal Representative Brijlal Rathore S/o Arjun Rathore Aged About 64 Years R/o Pooja Vriksh, Beside Honda Showroom, Tatibandh, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate For Respondent : Not noticed ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravansh i Order On Board

10.4.2024.

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure-P/1) passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur (CG) in Execution Case No.9/2022, whereby objection filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor has been dismissed by the said Court.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.118-A/1986 (Smt. Dai Ben vs. Hirau) in respect of land bearing Khasra No.26/28, Sheet No.16, Plot No.126, area 2160 sq.ft. situated at Distt. Raipur and vide judgment and decree dated 09.9.1987, the said Court allowed the civil suit in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter on

26.5.1994, the plaintiff sold the suit property to one Shivmurat Singh through a registered sale deed. Based on the above judgment and decree, the plaintiff/judgment holder filed an application for execution of the judgment and decree before Civil Judge Class-I, Distt. Raipur (Execution Case No.9/2022) and subsequently the proceeding had been started, against which, the petitioner/judgment debtor filed objection. The learned trial Court after considering the submission of both the parties passed impugned order dated 05.02.2024, whereby objection filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor has been dismissed and eviction order has been passed against petitioner, against which, present petition has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that vide judgment and decree dated 09.9.1987, decree has been passed in favour of respondent/plaintiff and eviction decree has been passed against the petitioner/judgment debtor. He would further submit that during the pendency of the appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the decree holder/plaintiff Smt. Dai Ben sold the suit property to Shivmurat Singh vide registered sale deed dated 26.5.1994, but the appellate Court has not been informed about aforesaid transfer. He would further submit that original decree holder/plaintiff Smt. Dai Ben (now dead) had filed present execution case No.9/22, but, since, she had sold the suit property vide registered sale deed to Shivmurat Singh, therefore, she/her Lrs. has no right to get executed the decree in his favour therefore, it has been prayed that execution proceedings may be dismissed and consequently, warrant of possession issued against the petitioner/judgment debtor may also be rejected.

5. Perusal of the Order sheet dated 05.02.2024 shows that judgment and decree dated 09.9.1987 was passed in favour of the original plaintiff/decree holder Dai Ben. It has been further stated that appeal was filed against the judgment and decree before the first appellate Court and during the pendency of aforesaid appeal, original decree holder Dai Ben sold the suit property by registered sale deed on 26.5.1994. Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act 1882’) govern the field of pendente lite transfer of the suit property. It does not restrain transfer of suit property during the pendency of civil suit/appeal, rather aforesaid provision sti