Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Gupta vs Tripti Lakkhan on 11 August, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:23324
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C M. P. No. 601 of 2025
-----
Ashok Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Ram Sahay Prasad, R/o Mohalla-Bara
Nimdih, Ward No. 7, P.O & P.s.-Sadar Chaibasa, Dist.-West Singhbhum,
Jharkhand ... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Tripti Lakkhan, D/O Late Radha Govinda Dutta and W/O Ajit Lakkan,
resident of Iiam Bazar Rajagram, P.S. & P.O. Rajagram, Dist. Bankura
(West Bengal), At present Tilok Road, 34/6 Durgapur-5, H-Zone, P.O. &
P.S.-Durgapur, Dist.-Burdwan (West Bengal).
...... Respondent / Opp. Party/ Decree Holder (Defendant No. 10)
2. Santosh Kumar Dutta.
3. Nishith Kumar Dutta.
4. Saroj Kumar Dutta.
5. Bijay Kumar Dutta.
(2) to (5) all sons of Late Radha Gobinda Dutta, resident of Mohella
Rajagramtola of Town, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa-833201, Dist- West
Singhbhum.
6. Shobha Rani Dutta, Widow of Late Anand Mohan Dutta.
7. Ashish Kumar Dutta.
8. Tusar Dutta.
(7) & (8) both sons of Late Anand Mohan Dutta
(6) to (8) all resident of Mohella Sadar Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa-
833201, Dist.-Singhbhum (West).
9. Mono Mala Nandi @ Monu Mala Nandi, Wife of Ajit Kumar Nandi
being D/o Anand Mohan Dutta, resident of 390 GP. Singh Road,
Bankura, P.O. & P.S.-Bankura, Dist.-Bankura-722101 (W.B.).
10.Mukta Dey, W/o Ananda Dey, being D/o Anand Mohan Dutta, R/o 3 No.
Brindaban Gosh Lane, Kolkata P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Kolkata-700012
11.Efali Parmanik @ Etali Parmanik, W/O Sachindra Nath Partmanik,
being D/o Anand Mohan Dutta, resident of 165 Dalda Lane,
Satyanarayan Jweallers, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi-831001, Jamshedpur, Dist.
East Singhbhum.
12.Sarwati Dalal @ Sashsati Dalal, W/O Tamas Dalal, being D/O Anand
Mohan Dutta, resident Posta Bazar, (Ghatal) Ghatal Bedding Store, (P.O.
& P.S. Mednapur-721101 (W.B.).
13.Mausomi Das, W/o Advocate Paritosh Das, being D/O Anand Mohan
Dutta, resident of Gopinathpur, P.O. & P.S. Bankura-722161 (W.B.).
14.Janani Bala Dutta, D/O Late Radhagobind Dutta and Widow of Late
Bibhuti Bhushan Dutta, resident of Town, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa-833201,
Dist. West Singhbhum.
15.Smt. Swet Barani Das, D/o Late Radha Gobinda Dutta and Wife of Late
Naba Gopal Das, resident of Kuch-Kuchia Lane, Bankura, P.O.-
Bankura-722101, P.S. - Bankura (W.B.).
16.Smt. Nihari Bala Dey, D/o Late Radha Gobinda Dutta and wife of
Mathura Prasad Dey, resident of Village Rajagram, Tola Bagchhala,
(P.O.+PS) Rajagram-722146, Dist. Bankura (W.B.).
17. Smt. Sandhya Rani Dutta, D/o Late Radha Govinda Dutta and Wife of
Rabindra Nath Dutta, resident of 495(A) Hill Colony Dhanbad, P.O. &
2025:JHHC:23324
P.S. Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad at present resident of Bobordanga, P.S &
P.O.- Bankura, Dist. - Bankura (W.B.).
18.Smt. Kajal Rani Guin, D/o Late Radha Govind Durra, Wife of Durga
Das Guin, resident of 129, L.R.M. A.V.M. Colony, P.O & P.S.-Durgapur,
Dist.-Burdwan (W.B.) at present ABI Township, T.R. 155, Durgapur-6,
P.O. & P.S. Durgapur, Dist.-Burdwan (W.B.).
... .... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
For the Opp. parties : Mr. Rohit Roy, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
03 / Dated : 11.08.2025
1. The petitioner is the objector under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC and is
aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2025 passed in Execution Case No.
20 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, an application under Order VI
Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C for amendment in the original
application filed under Order XXI Rule 97, 99 has been rejected.
2. In order to appreciate the issues, raised in the present civil
miscellaneous petition, it is desirable to set out the list of dates leading
to filing of the present civil misc. petition.
18.01.1984 : Title (Partition) Suit No. 01 of 1984 claiming partition of land
mentioned in the schedule property was filed by Nakul
Chandra Dutta and Nishit Kr. Dutta (respondent No.3).
02.08.1985: The suit was decreed ex-parte against all the defendants
declaring that the plaintiffs were jointly entitled to 3/13th
share.
2008 : Final decree was prepared. Judgment and decree attained
finality as no appeal was preferred.
2016 : Tripti Lakhan filed Execution Case No. 20 of 2016 for
execution of decree in T.P. Suit No. 01/1984.
2018 : The present petitioner filed objection petition under Order
XXI Rule 97, 99 read with Section 151 of CPC claiming to
be in possession of the property for last 50 years.
14.10.2018 : Notice was sent to the petitioner for Execution Case No. 20
of 2016.
2025:JHHC:23324
2018 : The objector's miscellaneous case was dismissed against
which Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2018 was preferred which was
also dismissed on 11.02.2019.
13.05.2019 : S.A. No. 88 of 2019 was preferred against the dismissal of
civil appeal.
11.02.2025: Second Appeal was disposed of with direction to the
Executing Court to decide on merit of the objector's plea
within a period of three months.
09.06.2025: An application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was filed which
has been rejected on 18.06.2025 and aggrieved by the said
order, the instant civil miscellaneous petition is preferred.
3. Learned Executing Court rejected the petition on the ground that the
petitioner instead of setting of his own case by way of pleading was
trying to find fault and technical errors in the case of the decree holder
so as to buttress his case. The pleadings were by and large the same on
which earlier Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 49 of 2018 was filed.
4. The proposed amendments run into 13A to 13N almost 14 paragraphs.
The gist of the amendment petition is that it came to the knowledge of
the objector that the disputed land was the property of the State of
Bihar (now Jharkhand) under town Khas Mahal lease hold land and
lease of the same has not been granted in the name of the decree
holder or her predecessor-in-interest. Since the Khas Mahal Officer or
the State of Jharkhand have not been impleaded as party, therefore, the
deed is not executable.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite
parties, that the land in question was a Khas Mahal holding and it was
very much within the knowledge of the objector. Despite these pleas
were not taken in the original objection, rather after the matter was
remanded back by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in S.A. No. 88
of 2019 with specific direction that the objector will appear before the
Executing Court on 10.06.2025 and will lead the evidence and the
objection was to be disposed of within a period of three months from
the date of appearance. It is also submitted that no evidence was led
on behalf of the objector within the stipulated period of three months
2025:JHHC:23324
and only to linger the adjudication, amendment petition was filed on
09.06.2025.
6. It is also argued that more than four decades have elapsed since
passing of the original decree in the title suit, opposite party no. 1,
who is a senior citizen, aged more than 70 years, still has not received
the fruits of the decree.
7. The old adage goes that trouble of the litigant arises after he obtains
decree in a suit. List of dates demonstrates as set out earlier will go to
show that fruits of the decree in the Partition Suit eludes the decree
holder after more than four decades. Petitioner/objector was given an
opportunity in the second appeal, when the matter was remanded
giving the Petitioner to lead evidence and conclude the hearing within
three months. No attempt was made to lead any evidence or the
hearing, instead a new Case was attempted to be set up by filing an
amendment petition to the original objection, stating therein that
earlier he was oblivious of the nature of the land to lease hold and
therefore the amendment was filed. It is rather bizarre that in 40 years
of litigation the objector came to know about the nature of the land at
the stage of execution of the decree. Litigants' woes have been
summed up in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India & Ors., (2014)
8 SCC 470 :
191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with
frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to
deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards
senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind
that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on
the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He
suffers long-drawn anxious periods of nervousness and
restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending without any fault
on his part. He pays for the litigation from out of his savings
(or out of his borrowings) worrying that the other side may
trick him into defeat for no fault of his. He spends invaluable
time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time
which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost,
2025:JHHC:23324
for no fault of his. Should a litigant not be compensated for
what he has lost for no fault?
8. The learned Executing Court has rightly rejected the amendment
petition which has been brought to procrastinate the execution
proceeding. There is a specific mandate of the Apex Court to dispose
the execution cases within six months in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra
Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418.
I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
The civil miscellaneous petition stands dismissed with cost. Cost
assessed to Rs.5,000/- which is to be paid to the opposite parties.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satayendra
