Satyajit Banerjee vs Hira Laxmi Mehta
2022 Latest Caselaw 243 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               W.P. (C) No.3180 of 2017
                          -----

1. Satyajit Banerjee

2. Subrata Banerjee

3. Smt. Uma Banerjee @ Uma Devi .......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. Hira Laxmi Mehta

2. Rajesh Mehta

3. Jyoti Mehta

4. Dipti Mehta

5. Naina Mehta

6. Naresh Mishra .......... Respondents.

-----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioners : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondents:

-----

Order No.03 Date: 03.02.2022

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24th January, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Dhanbad in Misc. Case No.3A of 2017 by which the objection petition filed by the petitioners on 13th July, 2016 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Execution Case no.5 of 2006 has been dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the contents of the writ petition.

The petitioners by filing a petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned court below contended that the decree under execution was not executable, as the decretal premise lacked identity as per the schedule mentioned in the plaint. The learned court below vide impugned order dated 24th January, 2017 observed that the petitioners/judgment debtors had raised all available pleas before the District Judge, Dhanbad in T.A. No.38 of 2006, which was being raised by them by filing petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the learned court below, filing of such an application by the petitioners was only to linger the disposal of the aforesaid execution case and to deprive the decree holders from getting the fruits of judgment and decree dated 30th January, 2006. It was also observed by the learned court below that there should have no confusion with regard to the description of the decretal premise,

as four boundaries of the same were clearly described in the schedule appended with the plaint.

In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the second appeal preferred by the petitioners against the original judgment as well as that of the first appellate court has also been dismissed.

Considering the fact that the petitioners have failed to make out any case so as to interfere with the impugned order dated 24 th January, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Dhanbad, the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/