1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WP227 No. 577 of 2016

• Smt. Manorama Sharma W/o Late Shankar Sharma, Aged About 65

Years R/o In Front Of P.C. Bafna & Co Beside Of Samta Saree

Ganjpara Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh

• Lokesh Sharma, S/o Late Shankar Sharma, Aged About 35 Years

R/o In Front Of P.C. Bafna & Co . Beside Of Samta Saree Ganjpara

Drug District Durg Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioners

Versus

• Kewalchan Gogad ( Dead ) Through Legal Heir Dilip Kumar Gogad

Dilip Kumar Gogad, S/o Late Kewalchand Gogad, Aged About 53

Yrs R/o Near Satti Chaura, Ganjpara Durg District Drug

Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner

:

Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Oral Order

26/09/2016

1.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been

preferred by the petitioners / judgment debtor aggrieved by order

dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Execution Court.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners raised sole submission that

despite objection having been taken to claim status of legal

representatives on the basis of will, the learned Court below without

requiring the other party to prove execution of will and that no will

has been executed has allowed the application directing the

applicant – Dilip Kumar to file affidavit. It is submitted that the

respondent – Dilip Kumar has not even mentioned the name of legal

representatives, the Court ought to have first directed to implead the

name of legal representatives and have proceeded by directing to

prove the will.

3.

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the application

is only allowed in part and direction has been issued for submitting

2

complete details of the legal representatives of deceased - decree

holder on affidavit. It is shown that the Execution Court has not

decided the issue finally and after submission of the relevant

information with regard to the legal representatives, the petitioner is

at liberty to move appropriate application in the matter raising all

objections, which are available to it under the law, which are

required to be decided by the Court below. If any objection with

regard to will is raised, the same may also be decided in

accordance with law.

4.

With the said liberty the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)

Judge

Chandra