Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Shabi Khan vs Addl. Dist. Judge Court No. 6 Lko And 5 ... on 1 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25112
Court No. - 6
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2535 of 2025
Petitioner :- Mohd. Shabi Khan
Respondent :- Addl. Dist. Judge Court No. 6 Lko And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhat Kumar,Janardan Bajpai
Counsel for Respondent :- Suruchi Tripathi,Pranjal Krishna
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the caveator.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that an order has been passed on 26.04.2025 whereby, it has been observed by the executing court that no one has appeared to press the application C-19, as such, the same is dismissed and further directions were issued for executing the decree.
3. From the perusal of the facts, it is clear that a suit in question was filed against one Mohd. Ubaid Ali by the respondent no.2 seeking a decree of rent and ejectment. The said suit ultimately came to be dismissed on 17.02.2018, which was decided ex-parte. No application for recall of the ex-parte decree was moved by the respondent-judgment debtor. The petitioner claims that he was put in possession over the property in question by Mohd. Ubaid Ali and the petitioner had laboured under the fact that Mohd. Ubaid Ali is the owner of the property and thus, the petitioner claims to be in possession over the property in question. Subsequently, it is claimed by the petitioner that the original lease deed in favour of the original lessee was extinguished by the Nagar Nigam and this fact was sought to be brought by moving an application for impleadment of Nagar Nigam, which was rejected. Challenging the said order, a SCC Revision No.6 of 2025 was preferred, which was dismissed with a direction to execute the decree expeditiously within six months.
4. The Counsel for the petitioner argues that the application filed registering the decree under Order 21 Rules 97, 99 & 100 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. should be decided on merits.
5. Considering the assertions made in the application, the application under Order 21 Rule 97 itself was not maintainable as, the petitioner is claiming to have put in possession by the lessee/ judgment debtor and the case for eviction against the petitioner would fall under Order 21 Rule 95 of C.P.C. In view of the law explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofPeriyammal (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors. vs. V. Rajamani and Anr. ETC: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 293.
6. In view thereof, it is clear that the proceedings pending in the form of application under Section C-19 was not even maintainable under Order 21 Rule 97, 99 & 100 and as such, prima facie, this is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The petition is dismissed.
7. As I have held that the application itself was not maintainable, no useful purpose would served in remanding the matter for decision on merits, the executing court shall ensure that the execution takes place if necessary with the help of the police.
8. The trial court is directed to execute the decree and sent a report to this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Order Date :- 1.5.2025
akverma
