Chattisgarh High Court
Surjeetlal Sharma vs Smt. Dalbir Kaur on 11 September, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:46556
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCC No. 421 of 2025
1 - Surjeetlal Sharma S/o Late Daulatram Sharma Aged About 73 Years R/o Quarter
No. 261, Adarsh Nagar, Kusmunda, Tehsil Katghora, Presently R/o- Plot No.- 344/3,
Sharda Vihar, Near Muda Dai Mandir, Distt.- Korba (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
1 - Smt. Dalbir Kaur W/o Sardar Lakvinder Singh R/o Ramsagarpara, Korba (C.G.)
... Respondent
{Cause title, as taken from Case Information System}
For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Order on Board
11/09/2025
1. Counsel for the applicant is heard on restoration application.
2. The applicant is seeking restoration of First Appeal No. 131 of 2007,
which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 12.09.2024.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that absence of the counsel on
12.09.2024 when First Appeal No. 131 of 2027 was taken-up for hearing was
based on bona fide grounds, therefore, order dated 12.9.2024 may be
recalled and the first appeal No. 131/2007 may be restored in its original
number.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent /decree holder submits that after
dismissal of first appeal for want of prosecution, execution of decree has
already been carried out and sale deed has been executed in pursuance of
the order passed by Executing Court. He further submits that petitioner has
not challenged the order of execution, hence, instant M.C.C. may be
dismissed.
5. When specific question was posed to the counsel for respondent /
decree holder that prior to registration of registered sale deed in compliance
of decree, whether notice was served to the applicant/ judgment debtor by
the concerned Court, then he apprised the court that no notice was served to
the applicant /judgment debtor.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. First Appeal No. 131 of 2007 was dismissed by this Court for want of
prosecution on 12.09.2024. Vide impugned judgment & decree dated
31.07.2007, learned trial Court had allowed the civil suit filed by respondent/
plaintiff / decree holder and directed appellant /defendant to execute
registered sale deed within two month from date of impugned judgment dated
31.07.2007, which was challenged by the appellant / judgment debtor by filing
First Appeal No. 131 / 2007, which was dismissed for want of prosecution by
this Court vide order 12.09.2024. After order dated 12.9.2024 passed by this
Court, decree has been executed and sale deed in respect of suit property
has been registered without serving notice to the appellant / judgment debtor
by Executing Court, whereas, as per decree granted against judgment debtor,
even after dismissal of appeal filed by petitioner/plaintiff, learned Executing
Court ought to have served notice to judgment debtor for compliance of
decree, but without serving him such notice, sale deed has been executed,
which cannot be appreciated.
8. In view of aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondent and
discussion made by this Court on 2.9.2025 while considering the application
for condonation of delay in filing MCC, this M.C.C. is allowed and Registry is
directed to restore the fist appeal No. 131 / 2007 in its original number.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
amit
AMIT by AMIT
KUMAR DUBEY
KUMAR Date:
DUBEY 2025.09.18
10:47:06 +0530
