[2025:RJ-JP:39623]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14717/2025 Saraswati Devi, Wife Of Shri Mool Chand Sharma, Aged About 82 Years, Resident Of Purana R.t.o., Saraswati Colony, Kota, Raj.

----Decree Holder/Petitioner/Plaintiff Versus

1. Rameshwar Prasad Sharma Son Of Late Moolchand, (Deceased) Through Legal Heir-

1/1. Kaushal Kishor Sharma Son Of Late Rameshwar Sharma, Resident Of 1044, Mahaveer Nagar-II, Kota.

1/2. Anurag Sharma Son Of Late Rameshwar Sharma, Resident Of 1044, Mahaveer Nagar-II, Kota.

1/3. Dr. Jitendra Sharma Son Of Late Rameshwar Sharma, Resident Of 1044, Mahaveer Nagar-II, Kota.

2. Premlata Wife Of Late Rameshwar Sharma, Resident Of

1044, Mahaveer Nagar- Second, Kota.

3. Anurag Sharma Son Of Late Rameshwar Sharma, Resident Of 1044, Mahaveer Nagar- Second, Kota.

4. Anita Sharma Wife Of Suresh Kumar Sharma, Resident Of Flat No. 701-A-3, Mahalaxmi Enclave, Baran Road, Kota, Rajasthan.

5. Sunita Tyagi Wife Of Arvind Tyagi, Resident Of Saai Vihar Colony, Chorsiya Saai Mandir, Guna (Madhya Pradesh)

----Defendants/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil K. Sharma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

25/09/2025

1. The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner with a prayer to issue direction to the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), North, Kota (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the Executing Court’) to decide the Execution Application No.25/2024, at the earliest.

2. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) North, Kota issued a decree dated 06.12.2010 in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2010, the defendants/respondents preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Additional District Judge No.1, Kota (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), which came to be dismissed on 10.05.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an execution application before the Trial Court on 18.09.2024 for restraining the defendants/respondents from making encroachment over the land in dispute. The defendants/respondents also filed an objection application dated 27.09.2024 to execution proceedings under Section 47 r/w Section 151 CPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Executing Court issued a decree dated 06.12.2010 in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff but the defendants/respondents did not comply with the direction given by the learned Executing Court. He further submits that against the said decree, an appeal was preferred by the defendants/respondents before the Appellate Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2024. Learned Counsel further submits that despite being the said decree in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner, the defendants/respondents tried to take possession over the disputed land, therefore, the plaintiff/petitioner filed the aforementioned execution application before the Executing Court for restraining the defendants/respondents from encroaching the disputed land, but the same has not been decided till date. He further submits that in the circumstances aforesaid, it is a fit case where directions are required to be issued to the Executing Court for concluding the execution application within a stipulated period.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors.; (2021) 6 SCC 418 has provided guidelines and directions for execution proceedings. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted as under:-

"42. All Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below-mentioned directions:

42.1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order X in relation to third party interest and further exercise the power under Order XI