Jharkhand High Court
Om Prakash Keshri vs Puran Ram on 8 October, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:31115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 553 of 2025
------
Om Prakash Keshri, son of Jagdish Prasad, resident of Kalimanda Road
Tiranga Chowk, Darji Mohalla, Giridih, P.O. Giridih, P.S. Giridih (T),
District Giridih .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Puran Ram, son of Late Dhaneshwar Ram, resident of Darjee Mohalla,
Giridih Town, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih
2. Ajit Kumar Verma, son of Puran Ram and Late Chintu Devi, resident of
Darjee Mohalla, Giridih Town, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih
3. Amit Kumar Verma, son of Puran Ram and Late Chintu Devi, resident of
Darjee Mohalla, Giridih Town, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih
.... .... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mahto, Advocate
Order No.06 / Dated : 08.10.2025
Petitioner is the judgment debtor and is aggrieved by the order
dated 06.02.2025 passed in Execution Case No.02 of 2010 / 34 of 2012
whereby and whereunder, opposite parties have been impleaded in the
execution case under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC after the death of the decree
holder- Chintu Devi. Opposite Party No.1 is the husband of the
deceased/decree holder and Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 are her sons.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that
there is no provision of substitution as expressly stated under Order XXII of
the CPC that the provision under it does not apply to execution
proceedings. So far Order I Rule 10 of the CPC is concerned, it is contended
that it will not have any application in execution proceeding as the same
applies in case of pendency of the suit. Without citing any proper provision,
the learned trial Court has permitted the impleadment of the opposite
parties before the executing court which is impermissible. Reliance is placed
on Union of India Vs. Kuppayammal, 1993 SCC OnLine Madras 132,
wherein it has been held that provision under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC is
not applicable at the execution stage.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the decree holders/opposite parties
has defended the impugned order. It is submitted that the eviction suit was
2025:JHHC:31115
decreed on 25.09.2010 and has attained finality after dismissal of the first
and second appeal. It is argued that executing court was well within its right
to allow the continuation of the execution proceeding under Section 146
read with Order XXI Rule 16 of the CPC.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced, this Court is of the
view that there is a legislative intent in not providing provision for
substitution during execution proceeding. Once execution proceeding is set
into motion, the death of a party does prevent due execution of a decree and
the execution cannot abate on the death of the decree holder. There must be
someone to prosecute the proceedings and execution proceedings cannot be
proceeded until the heirs of the decree holder are brought on record. Section
146 of the CPC gives the right to the heirs and descendants to prosecute the
execution proceeding.
5. It is not in dispute that the opposite parties are the heirs and
descendants of the original decree holder and therefore, in terms of Section
146 read with Order XXI Rule 16 of the CPC, they had right to pursue the
execution proceeding for eviction of the petitioner/judgment debtor.
6. Mere citing a wrong provision, does not materially affect the merit
of the order. I do not find any substantial infirmity so as to interfere in
exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Pending Interlocutory
Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
08.10.2025
Anit
