Manoj Patel vs Ajay Kumar
2023 Latest Caselaw 7097 MP

                                 1

 IN THE       HIGH COURT          OF MADHYA PRADESH

                        AT I N D O R E
                            BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA

                    ON THE 2nd OF MAY, 2023



                 CIVIL REVISION No. 582 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
   MANOJ PATEL S/O SHRI BABULAL PATEL, AGED
1. ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 175,
   NIRANJANPUR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   ABHAY PATIDAR S/O SHRI RAMNARAYAN PATIDAR,
   AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O-
   23, SAIKRIPA COLONY, NEAR MANDAR SCHOOL, RAU
   DISTRICT INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                     .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK BAJPAI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS)


AND
   AJAY KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI DURGAVIJAY SHARMA
1. R/O MUKUDGARH TEHSIL BAGLI DIST. DEWAS
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   AKSHAY KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI DURGAVIJAY SHRI
2. DURGAIJAY SHARMA MUKUDGARH TEH. BAGLI,
   DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
   ANAND KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI DURGAVIJAY
3. SHARMA MUKUDGARH TEH. BAGLI, DISTT. DEWAS
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SHANTIDEVI W/O LATE SHRI DURGAVIJAY SHARMA
4. MUKUDGARH TEH. BAGLI, DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   ABHAY KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI DURGAVIJAY SHRAM
5. MUKUDGARH TEH. BAGLI, DISTT DEWSA (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   STATE    OF    MADHYA   PRADESH   THROUGH
6. COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OFFICE, A.B. ROAD,
   DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                                               2

(BY SHRI A.S. PARIHAR, LEARNED P.L. FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
This revision coming on for revision this day, the court passed the following:

                                        ORDER

Heard.

2. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC has been preferred by the

judgment debtored/applicants being aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.2022

passed by the Executing Court whereby the execution application filed by the

decree holders / non-applicants No.1 to 3 has been disposed off as fully

satisfied.

3. By judgment and decree dated 9.12.2013 in Civil Suit No.8-A of 2012,

by the Additional District Judge, Bagli, District Dewas the following decree

was passed :-

", & oknh x.k & izfroknh Øekad 1 ,oa 2 ls 'ks"k foØ; izfrQy dh jkf'k 28]37][email protected]& :i;s ¼vB~Bkbl yk[k lSfrl gtkj½ izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa ,oa mDr jkf'k ij fookfnr psd Øekad 170497] dh jkf'k 7]09]250 :i;s ij fnukad 11-01-2013 ls ,oa fookfnr psd Øekad 170498 dh jkf'k 7]09]250 :i;s ij fnukad 13-01-2012 ls ,oa fookfnr psd Øekad 170496 dh jkf'k 7]09]250 :i;s ij fnukad 09-01-2012 ls ,oa fookfnr psd Øekad 170499 dh jkf'k 7]09]250 :i;s ij fnukad 13-01- 2012 ls orZeku jk"Vªh;d`r cSad dh C;kt nj vuqlkj 6 izfr'kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k C;kt Hkh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA ch & izfroknh Øekad 1 ,oa 2 mDr vuqlkj jkf'k dk Hkqxrku 60 fnol ds vanj oknh x.k dks dj vfHkizekf.kr djk;sa ;k mDr vuqlkj jkf'k 60 fnol ds vanj U;k;ky; esa tek djsaA lh & ;fn] izfroknh x.k Øekad 1 ,oa 2 }kjk mDr vuqlkj Hkqxrku ugha fd;k tkrk gS] rks oknh x.k dks izFker% ;g fodYi izkIr jgsxk] fd os & mDr jkf'k dh olwyh foØ; dh xbZ laifRr dks foØ; djkdj izkIr dj ldrs gSaA Mh & ;fn] oknh x.k mDr vuqlkj fodz; ugha djkrs gSa] rks oknh x.k ds ikl f}rh; fodYi ;g jgsxk] fd ;fn izfroknh dzekad 1 ,oa 2 }kjk mDr 60 fnol dh vof/k esa mDr jkf'k dk okLrfod Hkqxrku oknh x.k dks ugha djrs gSa] rks fookfnr d`f"k Hkwfe iVokjh gYdk uacj 23 dh losZ dzekad 406] jdck 2-100 gsDVs;j ,oa Hkwfe losZ dzekad 407] jdck 2-060 gsDVs;j ,oa Hkwfe

losZ dzekad 416] jdck 1-600 gsDVs;j ,oa Hkwfe losZ dzekad 440] jdck 0-580 gsDVs;j ,oa Hkwfe losZ dzekad 441] jdck 1-400 gsDVs;j ,oa Hkwfe losZ dzekad 442] jdck 0-940 gssDVs;j ,oa Hkwfe losZ dzekad 443] jdck 1-000 gsDVs;j ] bl rjg dqy 7 losZ dzekad] dqy jdck 9-680 gsDVs;j] fLFkr xzke edqUnx<] rglhy ckxyh] ftyk nsokl] e-iz- ds lanHkZ esa fu"ikfnr iathd`r fodz; i= fnukad 19-12-2011 'kwU; gksxk ,oa oknh x.k mDr Hkwfe dk vkf/kiR; izfroknh dzekad 1 ,oa 2 ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh jgsaxs] ijUrq 'krZ ;g jgsxh] fd oknh x.k & izfroknh dzekad 1 ,oa 2 ls izkIr vkaf'kd fodz; izfrQy dh jkf'k 13]26][email protected]& :i;s ¼rsjg yk[k NCchl gtkj½ :i;s U;k;ky; esa tek djsaxs ,oa izfroknh dzekad 1 ,oa 2 mDr jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh jgsaxsA ,Q & oknh x.k dk izdj.k O;; Hkh izfroknh dzekad 1 ,oa 2 ogu djsaxsA vf/koDrk 'kqYd izekf.kr gksus ij fu;ekuqlkj ;k tks Hkh de gks yxk;k tk;sA"

4. A perusal of the aforesaid decree reveals that there were alternate

options given therein for execution of the decree. The parties could act as per

Clause a, b and c of the decree and upon failure of them to do so Clause (d)

would have become applicable. It is an admitted position that none of the

parties invoked application of Clause (a), (b) and (c). The decree holders

hence invoked Clause (d) as per which they deposited a sum of Rs.13,26,000/-

before the Executing Court on the basis of which the impugned order has been

passed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are not in

possession of the disputed land and Clause (d) of the decree stipulates that

they are to deliver possession to the decree holders hence in absence of

delivery of possession the said Clause could not have been invoked and the

execution could not have been dismissed as fully satisfied. It is further

submitted that the impugned order has been passed in absence of the

applicants and without affording them due opportunity of hearing in the

matter.

6. A perusal of the order sheets of the Executing court reveals that the

applicants were duly served of the proceedings and applicant No.1 had also

engaged a counsel. However, subsequently both of them absented themselves

and did not appear in the proceedings hence the Executing Court proceeded

with the matter. The applicants having been served with notice of the

proceedings and having chosen not to appear before the Executing Court,

cannot raise a grievance as regards the impugned order having been passed in

their absence and without affording them any opportunity of hearing.

7. As per Clause (d) of the decree the non-applicants No.1 to 3 have

deposited the entire amount before the Executing Court. It was the entitlement

of non-applicants No.1 to 3 for obtaining possession of the land from the

applicants and such delivery of possession was not a condition precedent for

the satisfaction of the decree. On the contrary the applicants have the option of

withdrawing the amount deposited by non-applicants No.1 to 3 before the

Executing Court. Even if contentions of applicants that they are not in

possession of the disputed land is accepted, then also that is not an impediment

in any manner for the execution of the decree. By depositing the amount the

non-applicants No.1 to 3 have satisfied their part of Clause (d) of the decree in

view of which the Executing Court has rightly disposed of the execution

proceedings as fully satisfied by the impugned order.

8. No illegality has been found in the impugned order passed by the

Executing Court. The revision being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE

SS/-

Digitally signed by SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Date: 2023.05.04 17:32:01 +05'30'