Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dropadi Bai Jain W/O Shri Ghanshyam Das ... vs Tek Chand on 2 February, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 24518 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. DROPADI BAI JAIN W/O SHRI GHANSHYAM DAS
JAIN (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES (I) GANESHILAL S/O
GHANSHYAM DAS JAIN, AGED-78 YEARS, R/O 0-1
/6 -B POOSA ROAD NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. DROPADI BAI JAIN W/O GHANSHYAM DAS JAIN
(DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES SURESH CHANDRA S/O
GHANSHYAM DAS JAIN, AGED-66 YEARS, 1/6-B
POOSA ROAD (DELHI)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SANJEEV JAIN- ADVOCATE)
AND
TEK CHAND S/O LATE SHRI DHARMJEET, AGED-48
YE A R S , R/O JHANSI LOOP ROAD BEHIND OLD
ELECTRICITY HOUSE BARADARI CHAURAHA MORAR
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(NONE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not
directed against any particular order, but is filed being aggrieved by the arbitrary
approach of the Court of XIIth Civil Judge Senior Division Gwalior in
Executing Case No.33/2016 preferred by the petitioner in the year 1995 for
receiving the possession of the disputed property in lieu of the judgment and
decree passed by this Court in S.A. No.56/1983, whereby while setting aside
judgment and decree of the lower courts, the defendants i.e. present respondent
herein was directed to hand over the possession of the property to the
plaintiffs/petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the
execution proceedings are pending since the year 1995, on one pretext or the
other the said execution proceedings are being lingered on by the
respondents/judgement debtors and on number of occasions frivolous
applications have been moved by them and though those applications are
rejected by the Executing Court, but on the next date they approach with
another application, which is entertained by learned Executing Court and since
more than 27 years had passed the present petitioner/decree holders are waiting
to reap the frutis of the decree, therefore, it would be incumbent to issue
directions to learned Executing Court to execute the said judgment and decree
as expeditiously as possible within a time bound frame.
It was further submitted that earlier also this Court while hearing Civil
revision no.80/2016, wherein rejection of certain applications by the Executing
Court were challenged, directions were issued to present respondent/judgment
debtors to comply with the judgment and decree passed by this Court as
expeditiously as possible and hand over the possession to the present
petitioners/ decree holders, but even though there were clear directions issued
by this court the possession has not been handed over till date. It was, thus,
prayed that the present petition be allowed and the Executing Court be directed
to decide the Execution as early as possible.
Since it appears to this Court that disposing of the present petition
directing the executing court to decide the said execution at an early date would
not cause any prejudice to the respondents, this Court doesn't deems it
necessary to issue notice to the respondents in this regard, but deems it
appropriate to direct the learned Executing Court to execute the judgment and
decree passed in S.A. No.56/1983 dated 11.12.1993 as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of six months from today.
It is needless to observe that learned Executing Court shall not grant any
undue adjournment to the parties and shall decide the said execution within the
aforesaid period.
The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Chandni
