IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 24 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 1246 of 2025 KESHAV SINGH LODHI Versus KALYAN SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rajesh Awasthi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Lokesh Jain Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by Judgment Debtor challenging the order dated 08-10-2025 passed by the trial court, whereby the trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner/Judgment debtor whereby the Judgment debtor had prayed for rejecting the execution proceedings on the ground of limitation and on the ground of the suit being barred by Section 14(2) of the M.P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 ( for short referred to as Adhiniyam 1976).

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the judgment and decree was passed by the trial court on 14.05.2004 which was a judgment of specific performance of agreement and the execution proceedings have been initiated by the decree holder in the year 2023, which is after almost 19 years and could not have been entertained by the executing court. The second ground taken is that as per Section 14 of Adhiniyam 1976, there is bar of jurisdiction of civil court, that no civil court shall decide or deal with any question which are decided or dealt with by the SDO under the Adhiniyam

1976.

3. The Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the execution proceedings were initiated in the year 2023 and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 14.05.2004 was subjected to appeal and thereafter second appeal was filed before this court and even the second appeal which was registered as S.A. No. 1546 of 2007 was dismissed by this court on 17.04.2009 and therefore there was no reason at all for the decree holder to have further waited for 14 years even after dismissal of second appeal of the judgment debtor and the execution proceedings are clearly time barred and hit by limitation because as per Article 136 of Limitation Act maximum limitation period would be 12 years seeking execution of decree and the execution petition was filed 19 years after the initial judgment and decree and 14 years after the said judgment and decree was confirmed by this Court in second appeal.

4. It is further argued that this agreement to sale in question was in fact security for loan transaction and therefore it was hit by Adhiniyam 1976 and the civil court could not have entertained the suit and for this reason the decree is a nullity and execution proceedings against it cannot be continued.

5. Upon hearing counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the first ground is regarding limitation. Admittedly the judgment and decree was passed by the trial court granting specific performance on 14-05-2004 and in pursuant to the said judgment and decree, the sale deed was executed on 09-10-2007. It appears that the sale deed was executed by the parties voluntarily on 09-10-2007 even without filing any execution application, thereafter, the second appeal continued before this court which was ultimately dismissed on 17-04-2009 confirming the judgment & decree passed by the trial court.

6. The executing court has taken note of the fact that the sale deed was executed in the year 2007 but consequential updation/ mutation in revenue record was not made and the present execution petition has been filed only for mutation in revenue record while the substantial part of decree i.e. execution of sale deed has already been carried out in the year 2007 itself even without filing the execution petition. The executing court has also taken note of the fact that the decree was for specific performance and delivery of possession. From a perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the decree holder tried mutation in the revenu