IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN MISC. PETITION No. 2775 of 2025 ASHISH PATHAK Versus PRAKASHNATH CHATURVEDI (DIED) THROUGH LRS VIVEK CHATURVEDI AND OTHERS WITH MISC. PETITION No. 6765 of 2025 ASHISH PATHAK Versus VIVEK CHATURVEDI AND OTHERS ……………………………………………………………………………………………

Appearance:

Shri Shashank Shekhar - Senior Advocate with Shri Rohit Sohgaura, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sudipta Choubey, Advocate for the respondent No. 1.

..…………………………………………………………………………………………

O R D E R (Reserved on 27.11.2025)

(Pronounced on 03.02.2026)

Since both these petitions are at the instance of objector to the execution proceedings in the execution of the same judgment and decree and connected with each other, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. MP No. 2775/2025 was initially dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14-08-2025 but later on, a review petition was filed before this Court being R.P. No.1537/2025 which was allowed by this Court on 15.09.2025 and now as a result of the order passed in the review petition, the dismissal order being recalled, therefore MP No.2775/2025 has been listed again for hearing afresh.

3. While allowing the review petition, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had recorded that the application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC was not filed by the present petitioner in the execution proceedings but was filed by one Atisha Constructions on 15.10.2019 and against rejection of the said application first appeal and second appeal were also filed before the High Court and the same were dismissed, but erroneously it seems to have been recorded in the order dated 14.08.2025 that the present petitioner had filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC which has been dismissed. Therefore review was allowed finding that it being recorded in the order dated 14.08.2025 that Executing Court has not committed error in rejecting the objections filed by the judgment debtor seems to be consideration of a mistaken fact, as no objections were filed by the present petitioner, therefore the order dated 14.08.2025 had been recalled. In this backdrop, the matter in MP 2775 of 2025 has been re-heard by this Bench.

4. After the first petition i.e. MP No.2775 of 2025 had been restored by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2025, thereafter the Executing Court proceeded to issue possession warrant vide order dated 21.11.2025 and therefore MP No.6765 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order dated 21.11.2025 on the ground that since MP No.2775/2025 has been restored vide order dated 15.09.2025 in review, therefore the interim order passed in the said petition dated 26.05.2025 is also deemed to be brought back to life and thus, the Executing Court could not have issued the fresh possession warrant.

5. Learned senior counsel has pressed both the petitions by vehemently arguing that the petitioner is in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 1126/10 measuring 0.250 hectares which he purchased from original owners namely Virendra Kumar, Saroj and Surendra. It is argued that this sale took place on 05.04.2012 for land in Survey No.1126/9 and thus, the land which is occupied by the present petitioner is different from the land for which there is a decree of eviction passed against the respondent No. 2 who is the original judgment debtor. It is vehemently argued before this Court that even the judgment debtor had purchased some part of the land in Survey No.1126 from the original owners and therefore, various disputed issues arise in the matter which have to be decided by the Executing Court and the Executing Court could not have straight away directed issuance of possession warrant in such summary and shoddy manner without considering the objections that had to be filed by the decree holder.

6. It is vehemently contended by learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner has purchased land from the original owners which is now in Survey No. 1126/10 after division of