[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Mahendra Sonkar vs Bhairo Nath Sonkar on 4 December, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:36513
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 1112 of 2025
------
Mahendra Sonkar, son of Dev Bachan Prasad @ Deo Bachan Prasad, resident
of 195, S.P.G. Mission Compound, P.O. and P.S. Chaibasa,
District West Singhbhum .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Bhairo Nath Sonkar
2. Kashi Nath Sonkar
3. Bishwanath Sonakar
All are sons of Late Kishun Ram @ Kishun Lal Sonkar, resident of Mohalla
Mission Compound, Dumbisai, Chaibasa, Municipal Ward No.06, P.O.
and P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum
4. Munni Devi, wife of Late Kishun Ram, resident of Mohalla
Mission Compound, Dumbisai, Chaibasa, Municipal Ward No.06, P.O.
and P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum
.... .... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties :
------
Order No.02 / Dated : 04.12.2025
Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the
order dated 22.08.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)- I,
Chaibasa in Execution Case No.06 of 2019 whereby and whereunder a
petition under Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908 filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
2. Plaintiffs/opposite parties filed the suit for declaration of right,
title, interest and confirmation of possession over Schedule A property and
for eviction of defendant no.1 namely Dev Bachan Prasad from Schedule B
property which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by the learned trial
Court vide judgment dated 29th March, 2010 in Title Suit No.05 of 2008 and
the appeal against the judgment and decree was dismissed in Civil Appeal
No.9/2010 on 12.06.2024.
3. The second appeal against the judgment and decree is pending
before this Court.
4. The decree holder filed Execution Case No.06 of 2019 in which the
petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Application No.16 of 2025 which has been
rejected and aggrieved by the order, the instant civil miscellaneous petition
has been preferred.
2025:JHHC:36513
5. The objector claims to have filed the objection petition on the
ground that the land of Plot No.505 fully detailed in Schedule was gifted by
Kishun Ram, son of Late Sumer Ram in favour of his wife Shanti Devi by
virtue of registered gift deed on 12.02.1965. The said Shanti Devi was issue
less and she was the wife of younger brother of the grandfather of the
applicant Gurucharan Sonkar.
6. It has been pleaded that the decree holders are not the son of
Kishun Ram, who is admittedly owner of the property, rather they are the
son of Munni Devi, but no detail of father has been given by the decree
holders whereas the petitioners are the heirs and descendants of brother of
Kishun Ram.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials
on record.
8. The petitioner cannot be deemed to be stranger to the decree as he
is the son of Dev Bachan Prasad @ Deo Bachan Prasad, who was the party in
Title Suit No. 05/2008 which has been decreed and the execution case is
filed with respect to it. His interest was, therefore, represented by his father
who had appeared in the suit and he cannot be deemed to be stranger to
invoke under Order XXI Rule 97 or 99 of CPC.
9. The remedy provided under Rule 99 is for the benefit of third party
and not for the judgment debtor or any person claiming through him. A son
of judgment debtor cannot contest the execution proceeding under Order
XXI Rule 97 and 99 of CPC only when he claims an independent right, title
or interest in the property and is also in possession or has been dispossessed
in his own right. The plea taken in the present case does not disclose any
independent right on the part of the petitioner.
Consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed with
cost. Cost is assessed to be Rs.5000/-.
Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
Uploaded
06.12.2025
