IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI ON THE 22^nd OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 33 of 2026 PRAMOD SADANI Versus MUKESH KATIYA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Manish Kumar Vijaywargiya - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER This Civil Revision has been preferred being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed in Execution Case No. 27/2025 whereby the learned Executing Court has dismissed the application for execution as decree has already been executed and earlier possession of the disputed land was delivered to the decree holder.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Civil Suit No. 9A/2014 which was passed for declaration, possession and permanent injunction was decreed on 28.09.2016 and suit was decreed for all the reliefs claimed. In execution proceedings, the possession of the disputed land bearing survey Nos. 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, total area 0.916 hectare was given to the petitioner/decree holder on 09.05.2025 (Annexure A/5). Learned counsel further submits that there is no time limit for filing execution proceedings if the judgment debtor interferes in the possession over the disputed property for which decree for perpetual injunction has already been granted. He further submits that application may be made for any number of times when the judgment debtor interferes with the possession of the decree holder, therefore, he submits that impugned order (Annexure A/1) passed by the Court below is bad in law which has been passed ignoring the settled position of law and legal provisions, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order.

3. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagivan Das Jaiswal vs. Mst Nohari Bai &

Ors. (Civil Revision No. 305/2015, decided on 22.08.2024).

4. Heard and considered the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record.

5. It is not in dispute that decree (Annexure A/2) was in favour of petitioner/decree holder passed in Civil Suit No.RCS/9A/2014 for the following reliefs:-

''(अ) यह घो(cid:6)षत (cid:9)कया जाता है (cid:9)क (cid:14)ाम सारंगापुर (cid:22)जला राजगढ़ (cid:22)tiथत सव (cid:28) (cid:29)मांक 1223, 1224, 2225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229 तथा सव(cid:30) (cid:29)मांक- 1230 कुल (cid:9)कता-8 एवं कुल रकबा 0.916 है(cid:33)टैयर भिू म वाद(cid:39) के tiव(cid:41)व क(cid:42) होकर उसके संबंध म(cid:45) tiव0 खुमान (cid:48)ारा िन(cid:49)पा(cid:9)दत पंजीकृत (cid:6)व(cid:29)य प(cid:52) (cid:9)दनांक 13.07.2011 (cid:53)ितवाद(cid:39)गण 1 से 4 पर बंधनकार(cid:39) है।

(ब) (cid:53)ितवाद(cid:39)गण (cid:29)ं -1 से 4 िनणय(cid:30) (cid:9)दनांक से दो माह क(cid:42) अविध के भीतर उ(cid:56) भिू म का (cid:57)र(cid:56) अिधप(cid:41)य वाद(cid:39) को स(cid:58)प देते तथा इसके उपरांत स(cid:56) भिु म पर वाद(cid:39) के अिधप(cid:41)य म(cid:45) कोई अवैध हtiत(cid:61)ेप न तो tiवयं कर(cid:45)

न ह(cid:39) (cid:9)कसी अ(cid:62)य से ऐसी कराव(cid:45)।

(स) (cid:53)करण क(cid:42) प(cid:57)र(cid:22)tiथितय(cid:64) म(cid:45) उभयप(cid:61) अपना-अपना वाद-(cid:65)यय वहन कर(cid:45)गे। अिभभाषक श(cid:67)ु क (cid:53)मा(cid:22)णत होने पर या िस(cid:6)वल िनयम

523 के अंतगत(cid:30) सचू ी अनुसार, जो भी कम हो, आंकिलत (cid:9)कया जावे। ''

6. From perusal of the aforesaid decree, it is clear that for disputed agricultural land situated at Village - Sarangpur, Dist. Rajgarh of 8 survey numbers, total area 0.916 hectare decree holder was declared title holder and defendants (respondents herein) were directed to handover the possession within two months from the date of judgment and also restrained from interfering in the possession of the decree holder. Annexure A/5 reveals that possession of aforesaid different survey numbers which were in dispute in the aforesaid Civil Suit was delivered by the reliefs to the decree holder on 09.05.2025. Order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 43271/2025 (Pramod Sadani vs. The State of M.P.) reveals that t