Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Kumar Verma vs Smt. Manwasiya D/O Late Jagannath ... on 2 May, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2024
CIVIL REVISION No. 222 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA S/O SHRI CHHOTELAL VERMA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O 16/909 IN FRONT OF BAJRANG NAGAR TEHSIL
GHUJUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI R.K. VERMA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI RAM MURTI
TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. MANWASIYA D/O LATE JAGANNATH
PRASAD W/O SHRI RAMJIYAWAN KANOJIYA R/O
BARUA BAGEECHA PUURANI BASTI KATNI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BHUDHARNATH VERMA S/O LATE JAGANNATH
PRASAD VERMA R/O VILLAGE URHAT, TEHSIL
HUZUR, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This civil revision has been preferred against the impugned order passed
on 29.12.2022 by IX District Judge, Rewa in execution case No.7A/80x90
whereby the execution application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
The facts relevant for the decision of this civil revision are that a decree
was passed in favor of petitioner in Civil Suit No.7A/1980 vide judgment dated
19.01.1983 by II Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Rewa. Under
this judgment and decree, the title of petitioner was declared on some of the
disputed properties and a relief of possession was also given in his favour
regarding properties of survey Nos.4, 5 & 563. An execution application was
filed in the year 1990 but it could not be disposed off in a long period of 32
years and finally it was decided and dismissed on 21.12.2022.
It has been submitted in this civil revision that the impugned order was
illegal and perverse; the petitioner had got the judgment and decree in his favour
which was affirmed up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and till date he has not been
able to enjoy the fruits of the decree; if the executing Court was not convinced
about that the other properties should be mentioned in the execution
application, then it could have dismissed the execution application only to the
extent of those irrelevant properties but the entire execution application was not
supposed to be dismissed. The outright dismissal of the entire application on
some technical reasons was perse illegal. It is therefore prayed that the
impugned order be set aside and the executing Court be directed to issue a
warrant of possession in respect of Khasra No.4, 5 & 563.
Respondents have not appeared before this Court despite the service of
notice.
Arguments of learned counsel for the applicant have been heard and the
record is perused.
The execution application filed in the year 1990 is currently in a very
destroyed condition, therefore it cannot be gathered which of the properties
were originally mentioned in that application filed before the executing Court.
Now the issue is that the applicant is seeking execution of only that part of the
decree regarding which he was given the relief of possession under the decree
and this property relates to Khasra Nos.4, 5 and 563.
It is evident from the decree itself that the entire area of these three
properties were not the subject matter of the decree an only a part of the area of
these properties was to be handed over to the decree holder/petitioner. It is true
that despite the decree in his favor, the petitioner has not received any benefits
under it, till date.
The learned counsel for the applicant has requested that the impugned
order be set aside and a liberty be given to the applicant to file a fresh execution
application but this course would not be in accordance with law as any relief of
setting aside the impugned order would reopen the execution case and there
cannot be two execution applications pending simultaneously.
Considering the peculiar facts of the case, this Civil Revision is allowed
for the simple reason that the applicant is denied any relief although a decree
upheld even by the highest Court was passed in his favour.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the applicant is directed
to file appropriate application for seeking only the relief of possession of part of
the areas of properties of Survey Nos.4, 5 and 563.
Since only a portion of these three properties is to be given into the
possession of applicant, therefore, it needs to be clarified that for ensuring
effective execution of the decree the executing Court shall be at liberty to get
that portion of land measured by metes and bounds through the competent
authority and after ascertaining the specific portions, proceed for the execution
of decree regarding delivery of possession.
Parties are directed to remain present before the executing Court on
27.05.2024 and no separate notice would be required to be issued to the parties
for securing their appearance before the executing Court, unless otherwise
directed by the executing Court.
Let a copy of this order be sent along with the record for necessary
compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
DevS
