Chattisgarh High Court
Kishore Kumar Duggad(Since Dead) ... vs Rajmal Jain on 27 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
W.P.(227) No. 424 of 2021
Kishore Kumar Duggad(Since Dead) Through Legal Heirs
1. Smt. Nirmala Duggad, W/o. Late Shri Kishore Kumar Duggad, aged about 66
years, R/o. Hospital Ward Kondagaon, Tahsil Kondagaon, District
Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.
2. Rajesh Kumar Duggad, S/o. Late Shri Late Shri Kishore Kumar Duggad,
aged about 41 years, R/o. Hospital Ward Kondagaon, Tahsil Kondagaon,
District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.
3. Smt. Neelu Golcha, W/o. Shri Sanjay Golcha, aged about 42 years, D/o. Late
Shri Kishore Kumar Duggad, R/o. Ghadi Chowk Turning, District Dhamtari
Chhattisgarh.
4. Smt. Ruby Parakh, W/o. Shri Poonam Bhai Parakh, aged about 38 years,
D/o. Late Shri Kishore Kumar Duggad, R/o. Parakh Niwas, Main Road,
District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajmal Jain, S/o. Guman Mal Jain, aged about 44 years, R/o. Main Road,
Kondagaon, Tahsil Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.
2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : District Collector, Kondagaon, District
Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
27/08/2021 Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Siddharth Tiwari, counsels for the
petitioners.
Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy.A.G. for the State-respondent No.2.
Heard.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
although there is a decree standing against the petitioners in case of
specific performance of contract, which has been upheld by the High
Court. The S.L.P. No. 5227 of 2021, was filed, before the Supreme
Court, on which order has been passed on 28.06.2021 and the
Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the order of the High
Court, however, on the submission made by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners, the issue of escalation of prices of the
suit property has been reserved, regarding which the notice has
issued to the respondent. Therefore, the matter is under
consideration, before the Supreme Court and the out come of the
decision of the Supreme Court may have effect on the terms and
conditions of the contract between the parties. The petitioners,
therefore, moved an application, before the Executing Court praying
for stay of the execution proceeding but the same has been
dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this petition. Interim relief
is prayed for.
Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
No.2 opposes the petition and the submissions made in this respect.
It is submitted that the prayer made by the petitioners is not bonafide.
It is also submitted that the petitioners, who are judgment debtor
have not made any effort to obtain permission from the Collector as it
is directed in the decree against them. Therefore, the petitioners are
not entitled for grant of any relief.
Considered on the submissions.
Issue notice to the respondent No.1. Process fee as per rules.
List this case in the week commencing 20.09.2021.
In the meanwhile, it is ordered that the execution case,
pending, before the Court below, shall remain stayed, till the next
date of hearing.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
balram
