Lochan vs Ram Dulari
2022 Latest Caselaw 5206 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4710 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Lochan
 
Respondent :- Ram Dulari
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Sarwar Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Anoop Bhaiya Lal Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The issue raised in this petition is that the decree being executed on the spot, according to the finding of the Executing Court, tallies with the boundaries of the suit property detailed in the plaint, but the area, according to those boundaries of the suit property, exceeds by 30 decimals. The suit property, according to the description thereof in the plaint is 82 decimals and within those boundaries there is an excess of 30 decimals that the judgment-debtor says would belong to him. The objection under Section 47, therefore, is that for the excess 30 decimals of the area of land, the decree for possession and permanent injunction cannot be executed. The Executing Court has discarded this objection going merely by the boundaries and refusing to look into the area as the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit.

A perusal of the order dated 18.02.1982 passed by the Executing Court, however, shows that the Court has directed that the decree would be executed over the suit property, that is to say, plot No. 758 Aa admeasuring 79 decimals and 758 Ba admeasuring 7 decimals, that is to say, the two Gata Nos. admeasuring a total of 82 decimals, upon undertaking a measurement of the same. The aforesaid orders of the Executing Court are sufficient to quell the petitioner's objection that any area in excess of the decree is being taken away from him under it. The learned District Judge has approved the order of the Executing Court in Revision with the remark that the Executing Court has directed that an area of 82 decimals alone is to be taken away from the judgment-debtor under the decree upon a due measurement of it.

In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order impugned. This petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.

Order Date :- 15.6.2022

Brijesh Maurya