Jharkhand High Court
Digamber Jain Terahpanthi Kothi ... vs Sukhdeo Prasad Sinha & Ors on 8 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Civil Review Jurisdiction]
Civil Review No. 37 of 2022
Digamber Jain Terahpanthi Kothi through its Manager,
Mr. Rishav Jain, Ishri Bazar, District- Giridih,
Jharkhand. .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sukhdeo Prasad Sinha & Ors. .. ... ... Opp. Party(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
.........
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate
For the Opp. Party(s)/JUVNL : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
For the O. P. No.1 : Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Avishek Chandra, Advocate
......
05/ 08.07.2022. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior counsel assisted by learned counsel, Ms.
Chandana Kumari, appearing for the petitioner herein has submitted, that the
petitioner has filed the instant Review application on 06.06.2022 to review the order
dated 08.04.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. [C] no.6657 of 2019 which
has been passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner herein / respondent
No.1, Digamber Jain Terahpanthi Kothi through its Manager in W.P. [C] no.6657 of
2019.
Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that this Court
while disposing the above-said Writ Petition has observed considering the
submissions made on behalf of the parties and entire material on record, that the
Executing Court is duty bound to execute the decree against a judgment debtor. If a
persons is filing an objection under Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 CPC, the same
is to be decided with respect to the objection, but he cannot adjudicate the right, title
and interest of the objector in an execution proceeding whose application under
Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC has already been rejected by the learned Trial Court in the
Eviction Suit No.13 of 2010 from which Execution case arises.
Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that two Title
Suits were filed before the learned Sub Judge, Giridih, for eviction against the
respondent nos.2 to 5 i.e. Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Ors now Jharkhand
Urja Vikash Nigam Limited. Both the suits were filed with regard to eviction of
respondent nos.2 to 5 and both have been decreed, one filed by the review -petitioner
and another filed by the writ petitioner.
Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that both
decree holders filed Execution Case i.e. Execution Case No.10/2016 by the writ
petitioner and Execution Case No.4 of 2019 has been filed by review petitioner and
an objection has been filed under Order 21 Rules 97, 99 & 101 CPC in Execution
Case No.10/2016 filed by the petitioner herein which was admitted and against
which the writ petitioner came before this Court in W.P.C. No.6657 of 2019, which
was disposed of, by this Court, by directing the Executing Court to decide the
objection, but in objection right, title and interest of the parties cannot be decided.
However, the grievances of the review petitioner is that on the basis of such order,
the Executing Court has dismissed, the objection filed under Order XXI Rules 97, 99
& 101 CPC and thus, the decree which has been passed and has to be executed in
Execution Case No.4 of 2019 which creates hindrance in the said Execution case.
Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Avishek Chandra, learned
counsel appearing for the original Writ Petitioner and Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of JUVNL have univocally submitted, that a decree has
to be executed by the executing court in terms of the decree passed in Eviction Suit.
So far the order passed by the learned Executing Court dated 02.06.2022 passed in
Misc. Case No.22 of 2017 is concerned, the same is on the basis of material available
on record as the review -petitioner has filed an application under Order I Rule 10
CPC to be added in the original Title Suit i.e. Eviction Suit No.13 of 2010, which
was dismissed and no appeal or revision has been preferred and the same attains
finality. In an objection filed in execution case, the right, title and interest cannot be
decided which has rightly been held by this Court, as such, the Executing Court has
passed an order. However, the review-petitioner may seek legal remedy available
under the law in Execution Case No.4 of 2019 and the Court may pass necessary
order in accordance with law.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that nothing warrants to interfere in this Review
petition as no illegality or irregularity has been shown by the learned Sr. counsel for
the petitioner in the order passed by this Court, whereby, the Writ Petition vide W.P.
(C) No.6657 of 2019 has been disposed of, in terms of the order dated 08.04.2022
without affording opportunity to him. No prejudice has been caused by any
observation made by the Court to the present petitioner who has preferred this
Review Petition because of non-providing opportunity in W.P. [C] No.6657 of 2019.
Accordingly, the instant Civil Review application being devoid of merit stands
dismissed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sandeep/
