IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 13 OF JANUARY, 2026

CIVIL REVISION No. 7 of 2026

COL NISHANT SHUKLA

Versus

TEK SINGH KOSHTA AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Shivendra Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER Jabalpur.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P/1

dated 10.11.2025 whereby the Executing Court has rejected the application

for stay filed by the present petitioner/ judgment debtor.

2. There is a decree for cancellation of sale deed and possession

against the deceased father of the petitioner who expired on 09.06.2015. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that though the information of death of deceased father of the petitioner who was defendant No. 2 in the suit was given to the Court and even the Court issued notices to the proposed legal representatives but without carrying out actual substitution of legal representatives, the Court passed a decree against a dead person namely Ravi Prasad Shukla on 22.11.2022. It is argued that when the petitioner came to know of the said decree passed ex-parte then he has filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree which is pending as MJC No. 490/2024 before 14th Civil Judge Junior Division,

3. It is further submitted that parallel execution proceedings are going on before 9th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jabalpur to execute the decree of possession against the petitioner and the executing court has issued possession warrant to execute the decree of possession. It is contended that on one hand the petitioner is prosecuting his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and on the other hand decree is being executed which would lead to the petitioner not having any legal remedy at all and he being rendered remediless.

4. Considering the aforesaid assertions, it is seen that there is ex-

parte decree against the petitioner and the cause title of judgment prima facie shows that it is against Ravi Prasad Shukla who was reported to have died and information of his death was with the trial court in the year 2015 itself.

5. The petitioner being a legal representative has already filed application for setting aside ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which is pending before the 14th Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Jabalpur whereas execution proceedings are going on before 9th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jabalpur.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to direct the Principal District Judge, Jabalpur to transfer the Execution Proceedings as well as the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC before the same Court and same dates shall be given in both the proceedings.

7. Till disposal of the application under Order 9 Rule 13, the possession warrant shall remain in abeyance subject to condition that the petitioner would not seek unnecessary adjourments in those proceedings under Order 9 rule 13, failing which the Decree holder would be at liberty to approach this Court to seek recall of this order.

8. With the aforesaid directions, petition is disposed of.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE