Jharkhand High Court
Bindeshwari Devi vs Bindeshwar Pramanik on 29 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:20852 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 296 of 2025
Bindeshwari Devi, aged about 45 years, wife of Harendra Nath Pramanik
and daughter of Late Jaleshwar Pramanik, resident of Village- Dowaru-
Silli, P.O. & P.S. Dowaru-Silli, Dist.- Ranchi ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Bindeshwar Pramanik
2. Binod Pramanik
3. Niromani Devi
All substituted decree holders sons and daughter of Late Fudua Devi
(dead)
All resident of Mauza Agru, P.O. & P.S. Ratu, District- Ranchi
4. Puskar Pramanik
5. Rajkishore Pramanik, both sons of Shiv Charan Pramanik, R/o Mauza-
SoSo, P.O. & P.S. Ratu, District- Ranchi ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties :
-----
06/29.07.2025 Heard Mr. Prakash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India for setting-aside the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division-XI, Ranchi in M.C.A. No.1024/2024 in Execution Case
No.240/2019, whereby, the petition filed under Order XXI Rule 97, 98 read
with 101 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed
the petition against the decree holder under Order XXI Rule 97, 98 and 101
of the CPC for stopping the proceeding of execution of decree and judgment
passed in T. (P) Suit No.03/2006 and its Execution Case No.240/2019 arising
out of the said partition suit. He further submits that the judgment and decree
has been obtained by playing fraud with this petitioner as well as with other
( 2025:JHHC:20852 )
necessary parties to the suit and on the basis of the same, the execution case
arose. He then submits that the learned Executing Court has rejected the
petition by the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 only on the ground that the
Executing Court has got no power to alter the decree. He submits that the
learned Court has not decided the said petition in parameters of Order XXI
Rule 97, 98 and 101 of the CPC. He relied on the judgment passed in the case
of Shreenath and others v. Rajesh and others, reported in
MANU/SC/0286/1998. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned
order may kindly be set-aside.
4. From the impugned order, it transpires that the petition was filed
belatedly before the learned Executing Court on the grounds mentioned in
the said petition against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial
Court and against that judgment, an appeal was preferred, which was
dismissed and further second appeal was filed before the High Court, which
was also dismissed and in all the stages, the judgment debtor, who is the
petitioner, has raised the same question before the first appellate court as
well as before the second appellate court.
5. There is no doubt that once the petition is filed under Order XXI Rule
97, 98 and 101 of the CPC, it is required to be decided, however, adjudication
was already made up to the second appeal and the same ground has been
repeated in the petition filed under Order XXI Rule 97, 98 and 101 of the CPC
and in that view of the matter, the learned Executing Court has rightly passed
the impugned order. The learned Court has not erred in saying that the
Executing Court has got no power to alter the decree and the Executing Court
is bound to execute the decree in terms of the order.
( 2025:JHHC:20852 )
6. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, no case of
interference is made out and, as such, this petition is dismissed.
7. Pending petition, if any, is also dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ Abha
