Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hirendra Singh Alias Hiru vs Kunwar Bahadur Singh on 5 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 5 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 5493 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. HIRENDRA SINGH ALIAS HIRU S/O LATE SHRI
VIRENRA SINGH OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
VILLAGE DIDONDHA RAJHARA TOLA TAHSIL
KOTHI DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SANJEET SINGH ALIAS SHIBBU S/O VIRENDRA
SINGH OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
VILLAGE DIDONDHA RAJHARA TOLA, TAHSIL
KOTHI, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SATYENDRA SINGH ALIAS GABBU S/O LATE SHRI
VIRENDRA SINGH OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE DIDONDHA
RAJHARA TOLA, TAHSIL KOTHI, DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI DHANANJAY SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KUNWAR BAHADUR SINGH S/O SHRI
BHISHMDEV SINGH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PROFESSION RETIRED GOVT.
EMPLOYEE AND AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
DIDONDHA RAJHARA TOLA TAHSIL KOTHI
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJESH SINGH S/O SHRI BHISHMDEV SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PROFESSION ADVOCACY R/O VILLAGE
DIDONDHA RAJHARA TOLA, TAHSIL KOTHI,
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. BHISHMDEV SINGH S/O SHRI RAMNIRANJAN
SINGH OCCUPATION: PROFESSION
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE DIDONDHA
RAJHARA TOLA, TAHSIL KOTHI, DISTRICT
Signature Not Verified
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 12/7/2023
6:38:05 PM
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AKHIL SINGH - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed
being aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Executing Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is judgment debtor
before the Executing Court and a decree was passed in the year 2002 against
the deceased father of the present petitioners and execution was filed in the year
2023.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that by the impugned order the
Court below has passed order against the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 32(5)
C.P.C. during the course of execution of the decree. It is also submitted that the
decree was ex-parte against the deceased father of the petitioners and
petitioners have already filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for
setting aside of ex-parte decree. It is further submitted that as per Article 136 of
Limitation Act, the limitation for execution of decree is 12 years and the
execution proceedings having been filed after 21 years are barred by limitation.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents - decree holders
proposed the order on the grounds that the decree is one for perpetual
injunction for which no limitation period is prescribed for getting it executed. It
is also stated that as soon as the petitioners interfered in possession, the
execution proceedings were filed.
5 . Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record, it appears that the ground taken that the execution proceedings are time
barred, holds no force. This is because as per proviso to Article 136 of the
Limitation Act, it has been clarified that there would be no limitation for getting
a decree for perpetual injunction executed.
6. The other grounds taken by the petitioners that the decree is ex-parte
and their deceased father was not properly noticed before proceeding ex-parte,
cannot be made the subject matter of execution proceedings. The petitioners
have already filed a separate application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for
setting aside ex-parte decree. The petitioners have also filed stay application
along with said application, which is evident from Annexures P/5 and P/6. The
petitioners are free to prosecute the said application and prosecute the stay
application filed in the said proceedings.
7. Findings no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Executing
Court, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj
