Jharkhand High Court
Arvinder Kaur Wife Of Gurbinder Singh vs (I) Fuli Devi on 7 August, 2025
2025:JHHC:22491
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Revision No. 11 of 2021
--------
Arvinder Kaur wife of Gurbinder Singh, aged 53 years, by faith Sikh,
resident of Ram Tekri Road, Naya Bazar, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S. Jugsalai,
Town Jamshedpur, Dist.East Singhbhum ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1(i) Fuli Devi, aged about 65 years wife of Late Satya Narayan
Sharma
1(ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma, aged about 49 years, son of Late Satya
Narayan Sharma
1(iii) Sharwan Kumar Sharma, aged about 47 years, son of Late Satya
Narayan Sharma
1(iv) Kishan Kumar Sharma, aged about 43 years, Son of Late Satya
Narayan Sharma
All resident of Naya Bazar, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S. Jugsalai, Town
Jamshedpur, Dist.East Singhbhum ...Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opp. Party 1(iv) : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kishore Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
--------
Order No. 14/ Dated:07th August, 2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (judgment debtor) and
learned counsel for the opp. Party No. 1(iv). Since rest of the
respondents has not turned up in spite of valid service of notice, hence
the case has proceeded ex-parte hearing against them.
2. The present Civil Revision is directed against the order dated
01.09.2021 passed by Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Jamshedpur in
Execution Case No. 123 of 2015 whereby the plaintiff/opposite party has
been directed to comply the order passed by the superior court while
decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Misc.
Application No. 72 of 2018 was filed before the executing court by the
Petitioner under Section 47 CPC on the ground that the decree itself is
not executable and obtained by playing fraud with the Court.
2025:JHHC:22491
4. Elucidating his argument, it is submitted that on ground (vi) of
this memo of instant revision, it is specifically pleaded that the suit land
for which specific performance of contract was decreed, belongs to State
of Jharkhand (recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar, now Jharkhand). There
was no pleading of either of the parties that the suit property belonged to
State of Jharkhand and therefore no issue was settled in this regard
although the State of Jharkhand was necessary party in the suit, in
absence of whom no effective decree can be passed. Therefore, order
passed by the learned Court below directing the petitioner to deposit the
balance consideration amount in favour of defendant No. 1 and
execution of the sale deed within two months is absolutely illegal order
and liable to be set aside since the application under Section 47 CPC
filed by the petitioner has not been disposed of as yet.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opp. Party
No. 1(iv) has submitted that the opp. Party being decree holder has
fought upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decree passed by the
High Court was confirmed and upheld which has attained finality and the
questions raised by the petitioner regarding ownership of the property
cannot be decided in this execution proceeding. It is settled law that
execution court cannot go behind the decree.
6. It is further submitted that the present petitioner himself has
purchased the suit property from the defendant No. 1 assuming him to be
owner of the property in spite of fact that an agreement for sale has been
executed in favour of plaintiff/respondent. It is submitted that the
petitioner has also contested the suit as a party but did not raise any such
objections and now with a view to harass the decree holder, he is stating
absurd pleas. Therefore, there is no merits in this revision which is fit to
be dismissed.
7. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of rival
submissions of the parties. It appears that the present petitioner has
contested the suit for specific performance lodged by the O.P. No. 1
namely Satya Narayan Sharma (plaintiff) in the original title suit No. 84
2025:JHHC:22491
of 2006 which was decreed in part against the defendant No. 1 and on
contest against defendant No. 2 by the trial Court and in the first appeal
No. 102 of 2011 was decreed in full by the Hon'ble High Court of
Jharkhand which was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P.
(Civil) No. 2177 of 2016 vide order dated 06.03.2017. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has not raised any question to be entertained within the
provisions of Section 47 CPC rather has raised a very new and strange
ground of non-impleadment of State Government as a necessary party.
Such type of objection cannot be raised at the time of execution of the
decree.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the submissions
raised on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, this revision stands
dismissed.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Basant
