Jharkhand High Court
Ful Mohammad @ Phool Mohammad Aged About ... vs Md. Ismile Ansari on 25 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 184 of 2025
----
Ful Mohammad @ Phool Mohammad aged about 57 years son of
Late Md. Harun resident of village - Nababdewri, PO and PS -
Rajmahal, District - Sahibganj .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1. Md. Ismile Ansari, son of Late Md. Yakub Ansari, resident of Kasai
Mohalla, PO and PS - Rajmahal, District - Sahibganj
2. Abdul Latif Ansari, son of Late Md. Yunus Ansari, Resident of Kasim
Bazar, Po and PS - Rajmahal, District - Sahibganj
3. Jinat Nesha, wife of Neja Sk, resident of village - Jonka, PO -
Jonka, PS - Rajmahal, District - Sahibganj
4. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner,
Sahibganj, PO and PS - Sahibganj, District - Sahibganj
.... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Advocate
----
04/25.02.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India wherein prayer is made for quashing of the
order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge-I, Rajmahal
in Title Execution Case No.2 of 2021 arising out of Title Suit No.18
of 2001.
3. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 instituted the
Title Suit No.18 of 2001 in which the petitioner was one of the
defendant and suit was instituted for declaration of title and for
delivery of possession through the machinery of the Court and the
suit after contest was dismissed and decree is drawn vide judgment
dated 26.07.2013 by the learned Sr. Civil Judge-II, Rajmahal. He
submits that being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment the
opposite party Nos.1 and 2 preferred civil appeal being Civil Appeal
No.21 of 2013 which was allowed by the judgment dated
04.03.2020 and pursuant to that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 has
instituted the Execution Case No.2 of 2021. He submits in that case
the petition under Section 47 read with 151 of CPC has been filed
stating that the said execution case is not maintainable which has
been wrongly rejected by the learned Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits
that the decree is there and in view of the decree the execution
case has been instituted and the learned Court has rightly passed
the order as no cogent reason has been disclosed as to why the
execution case is not maintainable.
5. It is an admitted position that the suit is instituted by
opposite party Nos.1 and 2 being Title Suit No.18 of 2001 which
was dismissed pursuant to that the appeal being Civil Appeal No.21
of 2013 has been preferred which was allowed in favour of the
opposite party Nos.1 and 2 herein and against the appellate court's
judgment, the petitioner herein is not moved before any higher
court by way of filing second appeal or any other appropriate
petition and the execution case has been instituted in which such
petition has been filed and the only ground is taken that execution
case is not maintainable and how it is not maintainable is not
disclosed and the decree is already there and for implementation of
the decree the execution case has been instituted and in view of
that the learned Court has rightly passed the order.
6. There is no illegality in the impugned order, as such this
petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Sangam/
