Jharkhand High Court
Syad Asif Hussain vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
C.M.P. No. 126 of 2025
----
1.Syad Asif Hussain, son of late S. Salimuddin Ahamad, aged about 67
years
2.Nasir Hussain, son of late Salimuddin Ahamad, aged about 58 years
3.Syad Tauseef Ahamad, son of late S. Salimuddin Ahamad, aged about 47
years
4.Zeenat Jahan wife of Asif Ali d/o late S. Salimuddin Ahamad, aged about
44 years
Sl.No.1 to 4 all petitioners are resident of Yateem Khana Road, Naya
Bazar, Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Bank More, Dhanbad District Dhanbad
Jharkhand
5.Zeba Khatoon, d/o late S. Salimuddin Ahamad, wife of Ashraf Ali, aged
about 60 years resident of Milky Mohalla Ara, PO and PS and District
Bhojpur, Ara (Bihar) ...... .... ... Petitioner(s)
-- Versus --
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Siraj Khan son of late Samjullah Khan aged about 67 years
3.Kamal Ashral, son of Siraj Khan aged about 39 years
4.Nehal Khan son of Siraj Khan aged about 37 years
5.Smt. Salma Khatoon wife Suhail Khan d/o Siraj Khan aged about 31
years
All resident of Naya Bazar, Gaddi, PO Dhanbad, PS Bank More,
Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand ...... .... ...Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) :- Md. Nasim Akhtar, Advocate
For the OP/State :- Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Advocate
----
4/11.02.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well
as the learned counsel for the respondent State.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
whereby the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 08.07.2024
and 27.07.2024 passed in Execution Case No.05/2007 passed by the learned
Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhanbad. The prayer is also made to
maintain status-quo with regard to the suit property.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits the petitioners are having
right, title, interest and possession over the suit property and the said suit
property was purchased by the registered sale deed being Mouza- No.51, Plot
No.3370 and 2484(P) area one katha eleven chhataks. He submits that the
opposite parties are making hindrance and in view of that two petitions have
been filed before the learned executing court for filing objection under section
47 CPC and for taking time to file the petition. The learned court has been
pleased to reject both the petitions by the orders dated 08.07.2024 and
27.07.2024. He submits that the property is in possession of the petitioners and
unnecessarily the opposite parties are trying to disturb the possession of the
petitioners and in view of that, those orders are illegal and may kindly be set
aside.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that there is no
stay from any higher court and the learned court has rightly passed the orders
and there is no illegality in the said orders.
5. It transpires that Title (Eviction) Suit No.102 of 1990 was finally decided
on 08.02.2007 and for execution of the said decree, the execution case has
been filed on 30.04.2007. By order dated 05.08.2009 the decree-holder was
directed to file the requisites for issue of summons. In the meantime, the
present case was stayed by the High Court in C.R.No.16 of 2007 and the
decree-holder has filed a petition during pendency of the writ petition for
issuance of D.P., however, the same was rejected in light of the stay by the High
Court. The said stay order was vacated on 3.10.2018. The decree-holder has
filed a petition to issue writ of D.P. which was dismissed as not maintainable
and the matter was remained pending. On 23.8.2021 the appearance was
completed. A fresh petition was filed for D.P. on 29.03.2023 by the decree-
holder. The judgment-debtor filed a petition to recall the order dated
13.10.2018 on 18.08.2023. The said civil revision was decided by the High
Court in favour of the decree-holder by order dated 11.9.2023 and against that
the L.P.A was preferred by the petitioners-herein which is pending, however, no
stay has been obtained by the petitioners and the matter was adjourned by the
executing court and thereafter the two petitions have been filed which has been
rejected by the learned court.
6. The learned court considering that the said LPA was filed on 26.08.2023,
however, on 7.5.2024 the said LPA was defective and earlier sufficient time was
granted and no stay has been granted. Even the LPA has not been pressed
diligently. The learned court considering the judgment in the case of Rahul S.
Shah v. Jitendra Kumar Gandhi and Others reported in (2021) 6 SCC
418 has proceeded and rejected the two petitions by the order dated 8.7.2024
and 27.7.2024 holding that frivolous petitions have been filed by the petitioners-
herein.
7. The Court finds that there is no illegality in the orders of the learned
court and it transpires that only to linger the execution of the decree, the said
petitions have been filed. It has been pointed out that against the judgment of
the learned trial court, no appeal has been preferred by the petitioners meaning
thereby that the judgment and the decree has been accepted and there is no
illegality in the impugned orders. Hence, C.M.P. No.126 of 2025 is dismissed.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
