Abhishek Ranjan Kumar vs Binay Kumar Agarwal
2023 Latest Caselaw 372 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 (Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)
                        C.M.P. No. 807 of 2022
                                  --------

Abhishek Ranjan Kumar, aged about 27 years, Son of Girish Kumar Binod, Resident of Near P.H.E.D. Colony, Nai Muhalla, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamu, Jharkhand (822101) ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. Binay Kumar Agarwal, aged about not known, Son of Late Banshi Prasad Agarwal,

2. Santosh Kumar Agarwal, aged about not known, Son of Late Banshi Prasad Agarwal,

3. Sudha Devi, aged about not known, Daughter of Late Banshi Prasad Agarwal,

4. Indu Devi, aged about not known, Daughter of Late Banshi Prasad Agarwal,

5. Sudha Devi, aged about not known, Wife of Late Sunil Kumar Agarwal,

6. Amresh Prasad Agarwal, aged about not known, son of Late Raghunath Prasad Agarwal, All permanent resident of Nai Muhalla, Municipal Ward No. 15, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamu, Jharkhand (822101) ...Respondents

7. Girish Kumar Binod, aged about 70 years, Son of Late Ram Narayan Prasad,

8. Dr. Ashish Ranjan Kumar, aged about 34 years, Son of Girish Kumar Binod,

9. Ashutosh Ranjan Kumar, aged about 32 years, Son of Girish Kumar Binod,

10. Dr. Aparajita, aged about 31 years, Daughter of Girish Kumar Binod,

11. Animesh Ranjan Kumar, aged about 25 years, Son of Girish Kumar Binod,

12. Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, aged about not known, Son of Late Banshi Prasad Agarwal,

13. Reshmi Agarwal, aged about not known, Wife of Anil Kumar, Daughter of Late Sunil Kumar Agarwal,

14. Anuradha Kumari, aged about not known, Daughter of Late Sunil Kumar Agarwal,

15. Sonam Mittal, aged about not known, Daughter of Late Sunil Kumar Agagrwal,

16. Tanya Kumari, aged about not known, Daughter of Late Sunil Kumar Agagrwal,

17. Bindu Devi, aged about not known, Wife of Late Tapeshwar Prasad,

18. Sandeep Gupta, aged about not known, Son of Late Tapeshwar Prasad,

19. Rajnish Gupta, aged about not known, Son of Late Tapeshwar Prasad,

20. Rashmi Gupta, aged about not known, Daughter of Late Tapeshwar Prasad,

21. Prabha Gupta, aged about not known, wife of Late Gopal Krishna Prasad,

22. Suraj Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Late Gopal Krishna Prasad,

23. Kumar Sahil, aged about 33 years, son of Late Gopal Krishna Prasad,

24. Mira Devi, aged about not known, Daughter of Late Ram Krishna Prasad,

25. Maya Devi, aged about not known, Daughter of Late Ram Krishna Prasad, All permanent resident of Nai Muhalla, Municipal Ward No. 15, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamu, Jharkhand (822101).

........Proforma Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

-------

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate

-------

Order No. 03/ Dated: 20th January 2023

The petitioner has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of the orders dated 26th November 2013 and 12th January 2016 passed in Execution Case No.2 of 2012.

2. A further prayer seeking a direction upon the executing Court to conclude the proceedings in Misc. Case No.5 of 2013 and thereafter Execution Case No.2 of 2012 has also been made.

3. By the order dated 26th November 2013 the application filed by the judgment-debtor under section 47 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been directed to be registered as miscellaneous case.

4. The order dated 12th January 2016 simply records that a final decision in the execution case can be taken after disposal of Misc. Case No.5 of 2013.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the prayers made at clauses (a) and (b) are misconceived and, accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed qua the prayers at clauses (a) and (b).

6. In respect of the prayers made for expeditious disposal of Misc. Case No.5 of 2013 and Execution Case No.2 of 2012, this Court is inclined to issue a direction even in absence of the respondents keeping in mind what the Privy Council has observed in "General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Coomar Ramaput Sing" (1871-72) 14 MIA 605 : 20 ER 912 that: "...... the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree."

7. The Misc. Case No.5 of 2013 has remained pending for a decade which obviously is not in consonance with the decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, lastly in "Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors." (2021) 6 SCC 418.

8. Therefore, a direction is issued to the Presiding Officer seized with Misc. Case No.5 of 2013 to decide the objection under section 47 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure raised by the judgment-debtor within next three months without granting any adjournment to any of the parties, but for any just excuse.

9. Similarly, Execution Case No.2 of 2012 shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible after disposal of Misc. Case No.5 of 2013, preferably within a period of next six months.

10. This Court has made this order on an understanding that the petitioner has not taken any unnecessary adjournment in the proceedings of the Misc. Case No.5 of 2013 or Execution Case No.2 of 2012.

11. The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

R.K.