Jharkhand High Court
Binod Gope vs Smt. Rina Devi on 18 August, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:24479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 435 of 2025
1. Binod Gope
2. Subodh Gope
Both are sons of Late Ram Narayan Gope, R/o DVC, Colony PO & PS
Sadar, Dist.-Hazaribagh ..... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Rina Devi, D/o Late Pramod Kumar Gope
2. Smt. Juli Kumari, D/o Late Pramod Kumar Gope
3. Pratik Kumar, S/o Late Pramod Kumar Gope
4. Kajal Kumari, D/o Late Pramod Kumar Gope
All are resident of DVC New Colony, Near Upkar Hotel, PO & PS Sadar,
Dist.-Hazaribagh. ... .... Opposite Parties
.............
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
...............
For the Petitioners : Mrs. Manjushri Patra, Advocate
For the O.P(s) :
04/ 18.08.2025.
1. The instant Civil Misc. Petition has been filed against the order dated
27.08.2024 passed in Execution Case No. 53/2023 arising out of
Partition Suit No. 118/2008, whereby and whereunder, the objection
petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 47 of C.P.C has been
rejected.
2. Partition Suit No. 118/2008 was disposed of vide decree dated
18.02.2012 on the basis of a compromise petition.
3. The execution case was filed at the instance of Smt. Reena Devi, Wife
of plaintiff-Pramod Kumar Gope and her son and daughters.
4. As per para-7 of the compromise petition, 12 Kathas of land was
allotted to the plaintiff. On 28.01.2015, the original plaintiff died and
consequently, the execution case was filed by wife (petitioner no. 1)
and children (petitioner nos. 2 to 4) of the original plaintiff for execution
of the compromise decree. Learned Execution Court allowed the
petition rejecting the objection raised by the opposite parties against
which the present Civil Misc. Petition has been filed.
5. The main objection which has been raised by the petitioners who
have arrayed as defendant nos. 1 & 2 /judgment debtors, namely,
Binod Gope and Subodh Gope, both sons of Ram Narayan Gope.
2025:JHHC:24479
6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the partition suit
was filed in connection with Schedule-A, Item No. 1 and Item No. 2 in
the plaint, whereas the present execution case has been filed in
respect of the property mentioned in Schedule-A which do not
correspond to the suit property. In absence of proper description of
land, the compromise decree was inexecutable.
7. The leaned Executing Court has held that there was no mis-
description of property for which the Execution Case is filed vis-a-vis
the land as detailed in para-7 of the settlement between both sides.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the main
objection is with respect to the measurement of the land as detailed in
Para-7 of the compromise petition. Petitioner(s)/ judgment-debtors are
ready to hand-over 12 katha of land as detailed in Para-7 of the
compromise petition, but in the given boundaries of the schedule-A
land of the compromise petition, the measurement does not come to
12 Katha. In that circumstance, the decree for execution with respect
to entire 12 Katha will be non-executable.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced, this Court does not
find any major discrepancy in the details of the land as given in Para-
7 of the compromise petition, as such, the instant CMP stands
dismissed.
10. It goes without saying that while executing the decree para-7 of the
compromise will be given due consideration.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/-
