Jharkhand High Court
Pradeep Kumar Ghosh vs Smt. Kiran Singh on 3 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P(C ) No. 4461 of 2018
------
1. Pradeep Kumar Ghosh
2. Prabir Kumar Ghosh
3. Gorachand Ghosh .... .... .... Petitioners
Vrs.
1. Smt. Kiran Singh
2. Subodh Kumar Jha .... .... .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. No.4: Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate
30/03.08.2023
Heard the parties.
2. Petitioners have filed this application challenging the order dated
19.7.2018 passed in Execution Case No. 8 of 2012 by Civil Judge (Senior
Division)-I, Deoghar.
3. Title Eviction Suit No. 19 of 2009 was filed by Smt. Kiran Devi @ Singh
respondent herein against one Subodh Kr. Jha. The suit was filed for getting a
decree for eviction of Subodh Kumar Jha from the property in question and also
prayed to recover the arrears of rent. The said suit was decreed. After the said suit
was decreed, plaintiff filed Execution Case No. 8 of 2012 to execute the said
decree praying therein to execute the decree by evicting Subodh Kr. Jha. In the
said execution case the petitioners herein, filed an application under Order XXI
Rule 97, 99 and 101 of the CPC, claiming that the decree cannot be executed as
they are in possession of the property in question. It is also their case that a
separate Title Suit was filed by Kiran Devi (plaintiff of Title Eviction Suit No. 19
of 2009) against these petitioners claiming her title, and the said suit is pending,
thus the decree is not executable.
4. In the Execution Case No. 8 of 2012 the decree holder i.e Kiran Devi filed
a petition stating therein that decree of the eviction suit has been satisfied as vacant
possession of the suit property has been handed over by the judgment debtor in
favour of the decree holder. Judgment debtor also filed a petition affirming the
aforesaid fact. Thus a petition was filed by these petitioners and they prevented
the plaintiff to withdraw the execution case on the ground of pendency of the title
suit between them. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Deoghar allowed the
application filed by the plaintiff decree holder and disposed of the execution case
holding that these petitioners have got no locus standi to object or to file any
objection.
5. After hearing the parties, I find no illegality in the impugned order
on the following grounds:-
The Execution Case No. 8 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff of a
title eviction suit.
The eviction suit was filed to evict Subodh Kr. Jha who according
to the plaintiff was her tenant.
Subodh Kr. Jha in the execution case filed a petition stating that
he had handed over vacant possession to Kiran Devi who is the landlord
being plaintiff of Title Eviction Suit No. 19 of 2009.
Kiran Devi also affirmed the said fact by filing a petition in the
executing court. In an eviction suit under the special act title is not decided.
In this case, the tenant said that he had handed over the vacant
possession to the landlord and landlord accepts the same.
The execution was only for the limited purpose of taking
possession of the property from the tenant.
The execution case was filed by Kiran Devi thus she has all
authority to pursue the same or not and when she and the defendant of the
said execution case had filed a petition that the decree in the eviction suit
has already been satisfied, there was no occasion to keep the execution case
pending, at the instant of these petitioners.
6. Title of the property will be decided in the Title Suit filed by the
parties and the judgement of the eviction suit will have no bearing on the
title suit.
7. The petitioners herein will be at liberty to contest the Title Suit No.
35 of 2001 which is pending between Kiran Devi and them, which will
ultimately decide the right, title and interest over the property in question.
8. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/
