Jharkhand High Court
Umesh Prasad Choudhary vs Prabhat Kumar Rai & Another on 13 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No. 4599 of 2015
........
Umesh Prasad Choudhary .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
Prabhat Kumar Rai & Another .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondents :
........
07/13.09.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Prakash
Mishra.
Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for setting aside the
order dated 14.07.2015 passed by learned Sub Judge-VIII, Ranchi in
Misc. Case No. 23/2010, whereby the Misc. Case has been rejected
on the ground that no infirmity could be pointed out by the petitioner
to show that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 83/1997 has not been
satisfied in the Execution Case No. 05/2000 and thus dropped the
Misc. Case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra
has submitted that Title Suit No. 83/1997 has been preferred by
Umesh Prasad Choudhary for the following reliefs:-
(a) That a decree may be passed directing the
defendant to execute and register the necessary sale
deed in respect of properties mentioned and fully
described in Schedule "A" of the plaint on depositing
sum of Rs. 16,900/- being the balance consideration
amount failing which the court may be pleased to
execute and register the Sale deed in favour of the
defendant and to deliver possession over the same.
(b) Cost of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiff;
(c) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff be
found entitled may be granted;
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
this suit has been decided in favour of the plaintiff in terms of
judgment dated 06.01.2000 passed by Learned Sub-Judge-VI,
Ranchi in Title Suit No. 83/1997. In the judgment, order has been
passed that :-
" izLrqr okn oknh ds i{k esa t;if=r djrs gq, oknh ds }kjk okn&i= ds
varxZr ekaxs x;s vuqrks"kksa ds vuq:i esa izfroknh dks ;g funsZ'k fn;k tkrk fd okn dh
fu.kZ; dh frfFk ls nks ekg ds varxZr izfroknh oknh ls cdh;s tjleu dk :ñ
[email protected]& ysdj okn i= dh lwph , esa of.kZr lEifÙk ds fuLor dsokyk dj ns
vU;Fkk oknh ds }kjk mDr cdh;s tjleu dk :ñ U;k;ky; esa tek djus ds i'pkr~
U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls oknh ds i{k esa mDr dsokyk dj fn;k tk,A okn oknh ds i{k
esa [kpkZ ds lkFk t;if=r fd;k tkrk gSA "
In the prayer portion, it has also been mentioned that delivery
of possession over the same may be granted, but while preparing the
decree, this part of the prayer has not been incorporated by the
Seristedar, rather the suit has been decreed on contest with cost as
per the claims made in the plaint by the plaintiff and the decree has
been signed by the Sub-Judge-VI, Ranchi on 22.01.2000.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the
decree was not prepared in accordance with the judgment as prayed
in the plaint and that creates a confusion in the court which may be
rectified by this Court in view of the Section 152 of the C.P.C. and in
view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Tilak
Raj Vs. Baikunthi Devi (Dead) by Lrs. reported in (2010) 12 SCC
585.
It appears that earlier notices have been issued to the
respondents and they have appeared through learned counsel, Mr.
Rajiv Anand, but the said counsel has lost his life and passed away
for heavenly abode, as such, fresh notice is being issued to the
respondents.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, let fresh notice be issued to
the respondents namely, Prabhat Kumar Rai, son of Late Durga
Dayal Rai and Kamla Devi, wife of Late Durga Dayal Rai, both
resident of Ratu Road, near Bank of India, opposite Sulabh Subidha
Kendra, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Sukhdeo Nagar, District - Ranchi,
under both process, i.e. under registered cover with A/D as well as
under ordinary process, for which requisites etc., must be filed
within two weeks.
Put up this case after service of notice.
Office is directed to delete the name of learned counsel, Mr.
Rajiv Anand from the cause list as counsel for the respondent.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
