Jharkhand High Court
Baraik Jaikishore Singh vs Jagsu Sahu on 19 August, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:24295
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 919 of 2023
------
Baraik Jaikishore Singh, son of Late Baraik Ishwari Singh, resident of Village
Karoundi, P.O. Karoundi, P.S. Gumla, District Gumla (Jharkhand)
.... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Jagsu Sahu, son of Late Bhukhan Sahu.
2. Ajit Sahu, son of Late Bablu Sahu
3. Kanti Devi, wife of Late Bablu Sahu
4. Nishi Kumari
5. Nisha Kumari
6. Rakhi Kumari
Sl. Nos.4 - 6 are daughters of Late Bablu Sahu
7. Jalsi Sahu, son of Late Bhukhan Sahu
8. Anita Devi, wife of Late Sanjay Sahu
9. Vicky Sahu
10. Chotu Sahu
11. Bittu Sahu
Nos.9 to 11 sons of Late Sanjay Sahu
All residents of Village Gumla Sasai Road, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District
Gumla (Jharkhand)
12. Suchit Kalyani Lakra, wife of Late Arbind Pradip Lakra
13. Anmol Pius Lakra, son of Late Arbind Pradip Lakra
Sl. Nos.12 and 13 are residents of Village Pindarkan, P.O. and P.S.
Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
14. Anil Prakash Lakra, son of Pius Lakra, resident of Village Silafari, P.O.
and P.S. Chainpur, District Gumla (Jharkhand)
15. Saraswati Devi, wife of Late Baraik Brajkishore Singh
16. Baraik Krishna Deo Singh, son of Baraik Brajkishore Singh
Sl. Nos.15 and 16 are residents of Village Karoundi, P.O. Karoundi, P.S.
Gumla, District Gumla (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
For the O.P. No.14 : Mr. Aman Mohan Tirkey, Advocate
Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, Advocate
Order No.09 / Dated : 19.08.2025
Judgment debtor is before this Court for cancellation of the order
dated 03.03.2023 passed in Execution Case No.4 of 2004 whereby and
whereunder, the petition under Section 47 of the CPC has been rejected by
the learned executing Court.
2. It has not been disputed that judgment and decree passed in Title
Suit No.13 of 2002 had attained finality and even after that another Title Suit
No.27 of 2011 was filed with respect to the same subject matter of the suit
property and for the same relief by the same party.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel that there is specific provision
2025:JHHC:24295
under Order XXI, Rule 29 of the CPC that, where there is suit pending
between decree holder and judgment debtor, the execution proceeding needs
to be stayed until the suit is decided.
4. This Court is of the view that that the provision referred to above
will not apply in the present case, for the reason that before discretion can be
applied for staying the execution proceeding, there should be a case against
the decree holder by the Judgment debtor.
5. There is no case pending against the decree holder, filed by the
judgement debtor, rather it is a case where the suit had been filed by the
decree holder against the judgement debtor. This being so, there was no
reason for staying the execution proceeding. I do not find any infirmity in the
impugned order.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition accordingly stands dismissed.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
