IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 9 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 697 of 2022

SHAMLATA AND OTHERS

Versus

MATHURALAL AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Ram Krishna Soni - Advocate for the petitioners.

ORDER judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge. Subsequently, petitioners filed execution proceedings before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Chachoda, District Guna on 15-05-2014, as respondents had delayed delivering possession.

This Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India by petitioners, challenging the order dated 25-11-2021 passed by Second Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chachoda, District Guna, in

RCS No.93-A of 2002.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are petitioners filed a suit for

declaration, possession, and mesne profits in relation to the land situated at Village Rithonia, Tehsil Kailaras, District Morena. The suit was decreed by Additional District Judge, Chachoda, District Guna, on 05-09-2007 in Civil Appeal No.62A/2005. According to decree, respondents were directed to deliver possession of land to petitioners within two months. The respondents were also ordered to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs.5000/-

per year from 2003 until the possession of the disputed land was delivered.

3. Being aggrieved, tespondents filed Second Appeal No. 211/2017

before this Court, which was dismissed on 21-10-2010, upholding the

4. On 28-02-2018, this Court directed the trial Court to decide execution proceedings within four months in the case of M.P. No.1133/2018. The respondents had filed objections under Section 47 of the CPC, which were dismissed by trial court. The respondents later filed Civil Revision No.503/2018, which was dismissed by this Court on 08-08-2018. Despite these developments, execution proceedings remained pending, and respondents continued to delay the process, hindering the petitioners from obtaining possession and mesne profits.

4. On 11-11-2021, respondents filed a fresh application under Section

47 of CPC, which was considered by executing court, leading to the impugned order dated 25-11-2021. The petitioners now challenge the said order.

5 . It is contended on behalf of petitioners that the impugned order passed by the executing court is contrary to the original decree passed by the appellate Court and upheld by this Court. According to petitioners, mesne profits should be counted from the year 2003, as stipulated in the original decree, not from the year 2010. It is further argued that the execution proceedings have been unnecessarily delayed by the respondents, and despite the clear terms of decree, the respondents have failed to deliver possession and pay mesne profits as directed. It is well-settled law that the executing court cannot go beyond or travel behind the decree. The executing court erred by considering the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 CPC, as the decree passed by appellate court and confirmed by this Court in the second appeal is final, and the executing court should have complied with it. The original decree directed respondents to pay mesne profits of Rs.5000/- per year from 2003, until the possession of the disputed land was delivered. However, the respondents have not paid any mesne profit since 2003, and the delay in execution is largely due to the respondents' attempts to prolong the proceedings. It is further contended that petitioner no.1, who is 86 years old and a widow, has been facing prolonged litigation. Despite the decree being passed in favour of the petitioners on 06-02-2007, petitioners have not yet been able to enjoy the fruits of the decree, as the respondents continue to possess the land and have failed to pay mesne profits as directed by the appellate court.

6. Despite notice being issued, no one appeared on behalf of respondents in this matter. This Court proceeds to consider matter in their absence, given that notice was duly served.

7. After carefully considering the submissi