Firoz Ali and Another v. Nehrun Nisha and 2 Others

Court No. - 1 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6615 of 2023 Petitioner :- Firoz Ali And Another Respondent :- Nehrun Nisha And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Dixit,Abhinav Singh,Diwakar Mishra,Mohd. Naushad Ahmad Khan Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶1Heard Shri Diwakar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶2This petition is filed by the judgment debtor seeking to set aside an order dated 27.4.2023 passed by the District Judge, Sonbhadra in Civil Revision No. 9 of 2023 (Firoz Ali and Another Vs. Nehrun Nisha and Others).

¶3It appears from the first supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners that the suit of the respondent-decree holder was dismissed and the appeal filed by the plaintiff was partly allowed. A copy of the decree that has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit states as follows: " आददेश

28.9.2020 अपपील आआंशशक रूप सदे स्वपीककार ककी जकातपी हहै। तथका शवदकान शवचकारण न्यकायकालय दकारका पकाररत शनणरय व शडिककी शदनकाआंशकत 10.1.2020 अपकास्त शकयका जकातका हहै। एवआं वकादपी गण कका वकाद आआंशशक रूप सदे शडिककी करतदे हहए यह अवधररत शकयका जकातका हहै शक वकादपी गण व ्ቚशतवकादपी सआं० 01 व 02 वकाद्ቇ स्त सम्पतቈኌ कदे स्वकामपी नहपी हहै। शकन्ततु सआंयतु्ሹ रूप सदे अध्यकासपीन हहै। एवआं वकादपी गण कका वकाद वकाद्ቇस्त सआंपतቈኌ कदे स्वकामपी घघोशषित शकयदे जकानदे कदे सआंबआंध मम खआंशडित शकयका जकातका हहै। एवआं ्ቚशतवकादपी सआं० 01 व 02 कघो शनषिदेतधत शकयका जकातका हहै। शक वदे वकादपी गण कदे वकाद प्ቔ कदे अआंश कदे अ्ቌर ख,छ,च,ग सदे दशकारयपी गयपी सम्पतቈኌ सआंयतु्ሹ अध्यकासन सदे शनष्ककातसत न करदे और वकादपीगण कदे सआंयतु्ሹ अध्यकासन मम न कघोई व्यवधकान उत्प्ቐ करम और न हपी वकाद ्ቇस्त सम्पतቈኌ कका शवकय स्वयआं अनन्य रूप सदे करम। यह स्प्ቖ शकयका जकातका हहै शक प्ቌኘ᭎ कघो नजजूल भजूशम आवआंशटित करकानदे कदे सआंबआंध मम यशद कघोई अवसर हघो तघो उसदे ्ቚका्቎ करनदे कका अतधककारपी हघोगका। और भजूशम कदे स्वकामपी अथकारत रकाज्य कघो भपी यह अतधककार हघोगका शक वह वकादपी गण व ्ቚशतवकादपी सआंख्यका 1 व 2 कदे शवरु्ቍ यथका सस्थशत शनष्ककासन हदेततु शवतधक ककायरवकाहपी कर सकतदे हहै। मकामलदे कदे तथ्य एवआं पररसस्थशतयኘ᭎ मम प्ቌककार अपनका - अपनका वकाद व्यय स्वयआं वहन करदेगम।"

¶4It appears that thereafter Nehrun Nisha filed an execution application asking that a mound of bricks that have been placed by the judgement debtor to the east of the house of the plaintiffs be removed and the Kacha house that has fallen, that be reconstructed. In the aforesaid execution case, which is numbered as Execution Case No. 4 of 2022, an application 18E was filed by the petitioner-judgement debtor in which it was stated that no decree was passed for removal of the bricks. It was stated that with regard to the mound of bricks, the case is engaging the attention of the High Court and, therefore, the application for execution is defective. By the order dated 28.2.2023, the executing court rejected the application 18E. The revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.2.2023 was unsuccessful and it was dismissed by the order dated 27.4.2023.

¶5The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the execution application is misconceived inasmuch as the decree was not made with regard to removal of any bricks but the executing court is proceeding to consider the application for execution.

¶6A perusal of the order dated 28.2.2023 reflects that the executing court has referred to paper No.17Ga/2, which is a site plan prepared by the court bailiff which does not reflect any mound of bricks it was, therefore, observed that at the time of filing of the suit, there was no mound of bricks in the courtyard to the east of the house of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the application 18E was rejected.

¶7The revisional court considered the objections filed and the fact that the second appeal filed before the High Court was dismissed due to non prosecution and, therefore, there is no occasion to stay the execution of the decree. The order of the executing court was found to be justified and was affirmed.

¶8Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the fact that in the suit the report of the Amin, as proved, contained a site plan which did not reflect any mound of bricks on the east side of house of the plaintiff.

¶9As such, the order dated 28.2.2023 and the order of the revisional court dated 27.4.2023 cannot be faulted. No interference is called for in this petition and this petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 3.11.2023 K.K.Tiwari (Jayant Banerji, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad