Jharkhand High Court

Sharifa Devi vs Pandra Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd on 27 November, 2025

                                                  2025:JHHC:35507


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
         Civil Revision No. 6 of 2025

Sharifa Devi, aged about 73 years, wife of Sri Gaya Prasad, resident
of Village - Lalitgram, Kathitanr, P.O. & P.S. - Ratu, District -
Ranchi.
                  ..... Petitioner / Defendant / Decree Holder
                         -Versus-
Pandra Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., Ranchi through its Vice
President / President Shri Dayashankar Dubey, son of Late Kamla
Pati Dubey, resident of Block Road, Kathitanr, Ratu, P.O. & P.S. -
Ratu, District - Ranchi.
                   ..... Opp. Party / Plaintiff / Judgment Debtor
                         ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

--------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Oishi Das, Advocate.

---------

Order No. 06 / Dated : 27th November, 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned

counsel for the opposite party.

2. The present civil revision is directed against the order dated

06.08.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-IX,

Ranchi in Execution Case No. 32 of 2019, whereby and whereunder

the execution case filed by the defendant has been dismissed as not

maintainable.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the

plaintiff / opposite party has instituted a suit for a decree of

ejectment of defendant from the suit property and putting them in

khas possession of the same.

2025:JHHC:35507

4. The case of the plaintiff / opposite party herein is that the

plaintiff and defendant has entered into an agreement for purchase

of a land measuring 7.5 decimals along with existing construction

thereon appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 3754, R.S. Khata No. 110,

Village-Ratu, P.S. - Ratu, District - Ranchi, P.S. No. 79, out of total

area of said plot for a consolidated consideration amount of Rs.

3,25,000/- vide agreement dated 19.08.2000. It is further stated that

the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as part payment and she

was put in possession of the suit property by the plaintiff in

acknowledgement of terms of said agreement dated 19.08.2000, the

remaining amount i.e. Rs. 2,25,000/- was to be paid within six

months from the said date of agreement which elapsed on

19.02.2001, but neither the defendant paid the balance amount nor

taking any step for getting the said property transferred in her

favour and continued in permissive possession over the suit

property, which is totally unauthorized and illegal and hence, the

plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of defendant from the suit

premises.

5. The defendant / petitioner appeared and filed her written

statement on 05.05.2008, stating, inter alia that there is no cause of

action ever arose to the plaintiff and further stated that total

consideration amount fixed between the parties for sale of suit

2025:JHHC:35507

property was Rs. 2,25,000/- only and the sum of Rs. 3,25,000/-

appears to be manipulated figure. The defendant has admitted the

payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as an advance for the sale of suit property

as per agreement dated 19.08.2000 and stated that she is still ready

and willing to pay balance consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the

plaintiff at any day or time, as they required.

6. In support of respective case, both parties have adduced oral

as well as documentary evidence. The learned trial court after

considering the overall evidence available on record has decided all

the issues against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff

was dismissed on contest, but without any order of costs and further

held that the possession of defendant over the suit property was not

found unauthorized and ordered that defendant must pay Rs.

1,25,000/- to the plaintiff within three months from date of order

and the plaintiff after receiving the amount shall register the suit

property in the name of defendant Sarifa Devi or her legal heirs and

representative.

7. Against the dismissal of suit, the plaintiff has filed Civil

Appeal vide Civil Appeal No. 132 of 2020 in the court of

Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi, which was

dismissed by the appellate court by upholding the judgment and

decree passed in Original (Ejectment Title) Suit No. 302 of 2001.

2025:JHHC:35507

8. Thereafter, the defendant / petitioner filed Execution Case

No. 32 of 2019 before the Executing Court, which was dismissed

as not maintainable. Hence, this Civil Revision.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned

Executing Court has misconceived in determining the true meaning

of "decree holder" and wrongly passed the impugned order.

"Decree Holder" does not confine to plaintiff only, rather it

includes defendant, if judgment is passed in favour of defendant.

Likewise, "Judgment Debtor" does not confine to defendant only,

rather it also includes plaintiff, if judgment is passed in favour of

defendant. It is settled law that a decree can be executed even at the

instance of defendant, if judgment is passed in favour of defendant.

Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court has used

the word 'must pay' and 'shall' register, hence direction is

mandatory, therefore, refusal of registration by the judgment debtor

(opposite party), the Court has to register the sale deed through the

process of court. Therefore, in view of the above, the impugned

order may be set aside, allowing this civil revision.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the

learned Executing Court has rightly passed the impugned order and

there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order and this

Civil Revision is, devoid of merits, and fit to be dismissed.

2025:JHHC:35507

11. I have given anxious consideration to the rival contentions

raised on behalf of the both parties. Before going into the merit of

the case, it is pertinent to mention the definition of "Decree",

"Decree Holder" and "Judgment Debtor".

(2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include-

(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or

(b) any order of dismissal for default.

Explanation. A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final;

(3) "decree-holder" means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made;

(10) "judgment-debtor" means any person against whom a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made;

12. From the above definition, it is crystal clear that decree

holder means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed

or an order capable of execution has been made. Thus, decree

2025:JHHC:35507

holder may be either plaintiff or defendant, in whose favour

judgment has been passed, which is capable of being executed. In

this case, the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed and judgment

/ order has been passed in favour of defendant, thus, defendant, in

true sense, is "decree holder" within the meaning of Section 2(3)

of Code of Civil Procedure. Decree is only formal expression of an