Ishwar Ram vs Rakesh Kumar Gutgutia
2025 Latest Caselaw 5701 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ishwar Ram vs Rakesh Kumar Gutgutia on 11 September, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                                           2025:JHHC:27812



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                C.M.P. No. 843 of 2025
                                       ------

Ishwar Ram, son of Late Sukar Ram, resident of Satya Babu Lane, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar, at present residing at Village Adampur, Satmari, P.O., P.S. and District Gaya, Bihar .... .... .... Petitioner Versus

1. Rakesh Kumar Gutgutia

2. Vishal Gutgutia Both sons of Krishna Murari Gutgutia @ Murari Prasad Gutgutia, residents of Ramjesh Road, P.O., P.S. & Sub Division Madhupur, District Deoghar

3. Shiv Shankar Singh, son of Late Gobind Singh, resident of Mohalla S.B. Lane, P.O., P.S. & Sub Division Madhupur, District Deoghar

4. Kalawati Devi, wife of Ishwar Ram, resident of Satya Babu Lane, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar, at present residing at Village Adampur, Satmari, P.O., P.S. and District Gaya, Bihar .... .... .... Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties :

Order No.02 / Dated :11.09.2025 Petitioner is the appellant in Civil Misc. Appeal No.08 of 2025 which has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No.3/2006.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that judgment was obtained without impleading the petitioner behind his back and he was rightful owner of the said property. He being stranger to the suit, preferred a petition under Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 of the CPC on 04.10.2018 which was dismissed for default by the executing court, against which the petitioner has preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No.08 of 2025 which is pending before the Principal District Judge, Deoghar.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the executing court is proceeding with the matter during the pendency of the appeal. It is trite law that filing of appeal does not operate as a stay to the order impugned. It is submitted that the appellant has preferred the stay application before the learned first appellate court, which has not been disposed of.

4. In this view of matter, learned first appellate court is directed to dispose of Civil Misc. Appeal No.08 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible.

Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit