IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN st ON THE 21 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6333 of 2025 SMT. TARA BAI GUPTA AND OTHERS Versus ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Appearance:

Shri Priyanka Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioners.

ORDER By way of present petition challenge is made to order passed by the Executing Court dated 25.08.2025, whereby the application of the judgment debtor under Order 7 Rule 14 for taking documents on record has been rejected by the Executing Court.

2. There is a decree of permanent injunction passed on 24.04.2001 and execution has been filed complaining that the said decree has been violated by the judgement debtor by interfering in possession and raising construction on the suit land. This execution petition has been filed in the year 2016 and the judgement debtor by way of the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC has sought to bring on record some demarcation proceedings conducted in the year 2015 by the revenue authorities.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that while confirming the said demarcation proceedings, the decree holder was duly heard and therefore, the petitioner-judgement debtor only wants to bring the said demarcation report on the record, which would aid and help the Court in just decision of the case and therefore, such document should have been taken on record by the trial Court by exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC. It is the case of petitioner-judgement debtor before this Court that the petitioner only wanted to bring on record the said demarcation proceedings and the affect of the said demarcation proceedings would be seen by the Executing Court at appropriate stage and the Executing Court should at least have allowed the said document to be taken on record.

4. This Court has gone through the demarcation proceedings, which have been placed on record before this Court also and were annexed to the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC. In the said demarcation report, it is clear that there are no signatures of the judgement debtor and only at the time of confirmation of the demarcation report, the judgement debtor had submitted some objections.

5. The Executing Court while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC has duly taken note of the fact that the demarcation report is not a biparte demarcation report and is not under any orders of the Court, but had been got carried out by the judgement debtor on his own without any order of the Executing Court, even vefore filing of execution proceedings. The Executing Court has further considered in the impugned order that the Executing Court has already got a spot inspection conducted in which the actual position has duly been reported to the Executing Court and once the latest spot inspection report/demarcation report is already on record before the Court, for this reason also, a demarcation report of the year 2015 has no relevance to the execution proceedings.

6. This court does not find any error or infirmity in the logic and reasoning adopted by the Executing Court before whom a latest demarcation/spot inspection report is already on record and the ex-parte demarcation report of the year 2015 has rightly been held not to be a relevant document for the purpose of execution proceedings by the Executing Court, refusing to take the same on record.

7. Consequently, no indulgence or interference is warranted in the matter. The petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE rj