Gujarat High Court
Pravinbhai Harjinvanbhai Rajgor ... vs Kusumben Bhupendrabhai Thakkar W/O ... on 30 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1145/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1145 of 2025
==========================================================
PRAVINBHAI HARJINVANBHAI RAJGOR THROUGH POA TARLABEN
PRAVIN RAJGOR
Versus
KUSUMBEN BHUPENDRABHAI THAKKAR W/O KANTILAL PURSHOTTAM
THAKKAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MANAN K PANERI(7959) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 30/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr.Manan K. Paneri, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. He would state that the petitioner is the original opponent of Regular Civil Suit No.122 of 1999, filed by the original landlord. The suit came to be decreed, against which the present petitioner has preferred an appeal before the District Court concerned. Having lost before the District Court, thereafter, they have chosen to file a revision application under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 before this Court. However, there is a delay in filing such a revision application.
2.1 He would further submit that, in the meantime, the legal heirs of the original decree holder have filed Execution Petition no.42 of 2024 before the Executing Court for execution of the eviction decree passed by the trial court.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:51:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1145/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined 2.2. He would further submit that the petitioner has raised an objection against the decree on the ground that all the joint decree holders are not joined in the application and no notice, as envisaged under Order 21, Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been issued upon them. He would submit that without appreciating such a legal objection of the judgment debtor, the learned Executing Court, vide its impugned order dated 07.12.2024, has turned down such an objection and issued a possession warrant. So, in view of the above, he would request this Court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Executing Court.
3. No other and further submissions are made.
4. Before adverting to the whole issue germane in the present petition, this Court would like to remind itself and would like to refer decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sameer Suresh Gupta TR PA Holder vs. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, reported in 2013 (9) SCC 374 and Garment Craft v.
Prakash Chand Goel, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181, wherein the law has been summarized thereby the scope of the power of the High Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been elaborated.
5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner is the original opponent of Regular Civil Suit no.122 of 1999. The landlord has succeeded in the suit, whereby a decree of eviction has been passed against the petitioner, which was further confirmed by the appellate court. Although it is true that such a decree, confirmed by the appellate court, has been challenged Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:51:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1145/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined before this Court by way of a revision application, the same is pending at the stage of a delay application.
6. It is an undisputed fact that there is no stay, as on today, granted against such a decree, which is sought to be executed. It also remains undisputed that the applicants of Execution Petition no.42 of 2024 are the legal heirs of the original decree holder, i.e., Kantilal Purshottam Thakkar.
7. According to this Court, when one of the joint legal heirs of the original decree holder has filed the execution petition to get the fruits of the decree, which was granted in favor of their predecessor, there is nothing wrong if such a decree, at the instance of the legal heirs of the original decree holder, has been filed. When there is no stay granted by any competent court against such a decree, which is confirmed up to the appellate court, there is no reason not to execute such a decree in accordance with law by the Executing Court.
8. Having gone through the impugned order and examined the documents, which are annexed with the present petition, I have no hesitation to state that there is no gross error committed by the Executing Court, which requires interference by this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. Before parting with the judgment, it is required to be noted that, if so far, the possession warrant has not been executed by the Executing Court on any pretext, it is hereby requested that the Executing Court see to it that the possession warrant is executed, thereby enabling the decree holders to get the fruits of the decree.
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:51:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1145/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined
10. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present petition, and hence, the present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
11. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to the Executing Court.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) MOHD MONIS Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:51:55 IST 2025