Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2826 MP
Judgement Date : 28 February, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 28th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 3357 of 2021
Between:-
POORAN SINGH S/O SHRI MANGALIYA , AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PVT. JOB
CHHATRI DAULATRAO MAHARAJ CAMPUS
CHHATRI BAZAR LASHKAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI H.K. SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SCINDIA DEVSTHAN TRUST THR. SECRETARY
RANA KARAN SINGH S/O LATE SHRI RANA
SURENDRA SINGH JAIVILAS PARISAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT JYOTIRADITYA SCINDIA S/O LATE
SHRIMANT MAHARAJA MADHORAO SCINDIA ,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SAFDARGANJ, NEW
DELHI (DELHI)
3. SMT MADHVI RAJE SCINDIA W/O LATE
SHRIMANT MAHARAJA MADHORAO SCINDIA ,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SAFDARGANJ, NEW
DELHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT PRIYADARSHNI RAJE W/O SHRIMANT
JYOTIRADITYA SCINDIA , AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
SAFDARGANJ, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
5. SMT UJJWALA FALKE W/O SHRI VIJAY FALKE ,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, USHA COLONY, LASHKAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. BRIGADIER NRASINGH RAO PAWAR S/O SHRI
BABURAO PAWAR , AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
MANDRE KI MATA, LASHKAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. SMT USHA RAJE RANA W/O SHRI RANA
SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH VIJAYAVAS
MAHARAJGANJ, KATHMANDU (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. SMT SUSHMA SINGH W/O LATE SHRI
DHARMENDRA BAHADUR SINGH , AGED ABOUT
70 YEARS, VIJAY BHAWAN, JAIVILAS PARISAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KRAN VIRWANI, ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
2
following:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have filed an execution proceeding against eviction decree which is under challenge before this
Court in Second Appeal however in the execution proceeding dated 02.9.2021, the objection was filed which was rejected by the executing Court on the same day and the case was fixed for 17.9.2021 by issuing a possession warrant. On 06.9.2021, present petition judgment deter has filed an application under Order 21 Rule 11 of C.P.C that the decree for which the execution is sought is not being enclosed along with the execution application, therefore, the execution is barred under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 11 of C.P.C. The said application dated 06.9.2021 has been ordered to consider on 07.9.2021, however, without considering the application, the executing Court has issued the possession warrant which is contrary to record. Hence, this petition.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this petition has rendered infructuous as the decree holder/ respondents received the possession of disputed place and the application for execution has been dismissed in full satisfaction. To support his contention, he has filed the order-sheet dated 27.9.2021 in Execution Case No. 32/2020 SCINDIA DEVSTHAN TRUST & Ors. v. POORAN SINGH & Ors.
On perusal of the above order-sheet, it appears that the executing Court has ended the execution proceedings in full satisfaction because the decree holder informed the Court about his receiving the vacant possession of the disputed place.
Since the disputed place has already been vacated by the petitioner, no purpose would be served in proceeding further with this petition. Hence, present petition is dismissed having rendered infructuous.
ALOK KUMAR
2022.03.03
14:39:22
+05'30'
11.0.20 (SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
AKS
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!