IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

CIVIL REVISION No. 676 of 2025

SHRIDHAR CHATURVEDI

Versus

RAM VISHWAS (DEAD) SIYA DULARI AND OTHERS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Ashok Kumar Jain - Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri Dhananjay Shukla, learned counsel for the Respondent No.19.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(O R D E R)

(Reserved on : 15/12/2025)

(Pronounced on:22/12/2025)

By way of this revision challenge is made to the impugned order dated 26-06-

2025 passed by the trial court at the instance of decree holder. By the said order, the

trial court has closed the execution proceedings as being barred by limitation.

2. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the execution proceedings have wrongly been closed by holding the same to be barred by time, though the proceedings were not barred by limitation. It is vehemently argued that initially a suit had been filed in the year 1982 by the decree holder, against one Raghuvarsharan, who was father of present respondent No. 1, Ram Vishwas. The said suit, for deterioration of title, permanent injunction and possession, was decreed against the father of present respondent No. 1, vide judgment and decree dated 30-07-1984 by

the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Satna, in RCSA No. 59/1982. Initially the judgment and decree was dismissed by the district court and then Second Appeal No. 41 of 1991 was filed before this court, which also got dismissed vide order dated 13.01.1992. Thereafter, the respondents filed civil suit no. 77-A/2009 before the district court, on the assertion that there had been certain sale transactions in favour of other plaintiffs in the civil suit, after the judgment and decree had been passed by the trial court in the year 1984. These sale transactions are stated to have taken place in the year 2007. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent suit filed by the defendants of the earlier suit and their subsequent purchasers, got dismissed in First Appeal No. 621 of 2013 by this court, vide judgment dated 27-07-2023, and this court held that the subsequent suit was not maintainable being barred by the principle of res-judicata. After dismissal of the subsequent suit, the present petitioner had filed application for execution before the executing court in the year 2023, which cannot be stated to be barred by limitation. It is further argued that this court in first appeal, while dismissing the subsequent suit, had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority with appropriate application with regard to possession over the two properties. Thereafter, execution was instituted which cannot be held to be barred by limitation. It is argued that earlier the petitioner had been delivered possession of the suit land in the year 1992, but thereafter, during pendency of the subsequent suit, filed by the defendant and subsequent purchaser, the petitioner had been dispossessed in the year 2010, and at that point of time, the subsequent suit was pending, which was later on decreed, and first appeal against the said judgment and decree remain pending before this court, and hence, in view of these developments, the execution petition cannot be deemed to have been barred by limitation.

3. Per Contra, it is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the respondent that no fresh right of execution accrued in favour of the petitioner against the subsequent purchaser because the subsequent purchaser had purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 24.07.2007 when the earlier execution petition, which had been filed by the present petitioner, had been dismissed in default. It is argued that earlier an execution petition had been filed on 07.05.2001, which in itself seemed to be barred by limitation, and that execution petition was dismissed in defau