Chandrapal Guruwani vs Suresh Guruwani
2025 Latest Caselaw 3398 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Chandrapal Guruwani vs Suresh Guruwani on 25 August, 2025

                                         1




Digitally signed
by RAMESH                                                 2025:CGHC:42946
KUMAR VATTI
Date: 2025.08.28
18:51:18 +0530
                                                                          NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                             WP227 No. 691 of 2021
* - Chandrapal Guruwani S/o Late Mohanlal Guruwani Aged About 51 Years
R/o Tirthani Road New Sarkanda, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                        ... Petitioner/Plaintiff
                                       Versus
* - Suresh Guruwani S/o Late Mohanlal Gurwani Aged About 59 Years R/o
Tirthani Road, New Sarkanda, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                  ... Respondent/Defendant

For Petitioner : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate

For Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/08/2025

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

10.i This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case.

10.ii This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 11.11.2021 (ANNEXURE P-1) passed by the 8th Civil Judge Class II, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh being ex facie bad in law.

10.iii This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

10.iv Costs of the petition may also be saddled on the respondents.

2. Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2011 a compromise judgment and

decree with regard to permanent injunction was passed on 30.06.2011.

He would contend that despite there being a compromise decree of

permanent injunction, the respondent/defendant started interfering with

the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over subject shop, therefore,

an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC was moved before the

learned Executing Court in pending execution proceedings. He would

contend that the said application was rejected by the learned Executing

Court vide order dated 11.11.2021. He would fairly submit that the

petitioner wanted to move an application strictly in accordance with the

provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC which states that decree of

injunction can be enforced by detention of the judgment debtor in civil

prison or by attachment of property. He would submit that the learned

Executing Court rejected the application on the ground that the Rent

Controlling Authority is not subordinate to the Civil Court, therefore,

proceedings pending before it cannot be stayed. He would contend

that the application moved by the petitioner has not been decided on

merits, rather it has been rejected on technical grounds.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Sourabh Agrawal, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent would oppose the submission made by Mr. Pranjal

Agrawal. He would contend that the learned Executing Court decided

the application moved by the petitioner after considering the pleadings

made therein. He would further contend that the prayer was made by

the petitioner to stay the proceedings pending before the Rent

Controlling Authority which was not maintainable and accordingly the

application was rejected. He would submit that the petition deserves to

be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents.

5. According to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC, decree of

injunction can be enforced by detention of judgment debtor or by

attachment property on an application moved by decree holder. With

regard to stay of the proceedings pending either before the Rent

Controlling Authority or by Revenue Court cannot be sought for. The

petitioner has sought for relief(s) according to the provisions of Order

21 Rule 32 of CPC, but the learned Executing Court rejected it on

technical grounds. The order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the learned

Executing Court is hereby set aside.

6. The learned Executing Court is directed to decide the application

moved by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC afresh

after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.

7. Interim order granted on 06.12.2021 is hereby vacated.

8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. No costs.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

vatti