Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ishraji Bai vs Late Krishna Devi Through Her Lrs ... on 29 April, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20317
1 MP-1640-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 1640 of 2025
SMT. ISHRAJI BAI AND OTHERS
Versus
LATE KRISHNA DEVI THROUGH HER LRS SHIVCHARAN AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ramakant Awasthi - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri D.K. Dixit - Senior Advocate with Shri S.K. Jain - Advocate for
respondents.
ORDER
The petition is filed assailing the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the
Second District Judge, Harda District Harda (M.P.) in Case No. EX
A/300011/1986, whereby the application under Order 21 Rule 29 read with
Section 151 of the CPC filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for stay the
execution of decree has been rejected.
2. The facts of the case, in substance, are that the plaintiff Nathulal (since
dead) filed a civil suit for specific performance of sale deeds dated
25.02.1981 and 01.05.1981 before the Additional District Judge, Harda who
passed the judgment and decree dated 24.06.1999 in favour of the defendant
Smt. Krishna Devi (since dead). Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal
being FA No. 402 of 1999 before this Court which passed an interim order
and the execution proceedings were stayed but the appeal was dismissed as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20317
2 MP-1640-2025
abated vide order dated 29.08.2022. Accordingly, the execution proceedings
were restarted. During pendency of the first appeal, on 25.11.2013, the
plaintiff Nathulal died but unfortunately an application for bringing LRs on
record has not been filed. Thereafter, an SLP has been preferred which came
to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
3. It is submitted that LRs of plaintiff Nathulal filed a civil suit being CS
No. 8A of 2018 before the Civil Judge Khirkiya for possession and
permanent injunction wherein LRs of defendant Smt. Krishna Devi filed an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint. The same
was allowed and the suit was dismissed vide order dated 07.07.2023.
Thereafter, an appeal has been preferred before the First Additional District
Judge, Harda being Misc. Appeal No. 58A of 2023 which is pending
consideration. It is submitted that during pendency of the execution
proceedings, the petitioners preferred an application under Order 21 Rule 29
read with Section 151 of CPC for staying the execution proceedings and
mentioning therein that the appeal being Appeal No. 58A of 2023 and a
petition being MP No. 3714 of 2024 are pending consideration.
4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of Order 21 Rule 29
of CPC, as the appeal being Appeal No. 58A of 2023 is pending
consideration before the First Additional District Judge, Harda as well as the
fact that Misc. Petition No. 3714 of 2024 which has been filed by the
petitioners before this Court is pending consideration before this Court,
therefore, the execution proceedings should be kept in abeyance till the
disposal of the litigation pending before the Courts. The learned Court below
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20317
3 MP-1640-2025
has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and rejected the
application vide impugned order, therefore, this petition has been filed.
5. Counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the
contentions pointing out the fact that the civil suit filed in the earlier occasion
has already been dismissed; against which, a first appeal was filed which was
also dismissed. Thereafter, the matter travelled upto the Hon'ble Supreme
Court by filing an SLP which was also dismissed on the ground of delay.
Thereafter, again a civil suit has been filed by the petitioner for possession
and permanent injunction. In the aforesaid suit, an application under Order 7
Rule 11 of CPC was filed by the respondents. The same was allowed and the
civil suit was dismissed, against which an appeal has been preferred which is
pending consideration being Appeal No. 58A of 2023. It is pointed out that
once the lis pertaining to the property in question has already attained
finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, merely the fact that the second civil
suit has been filed which too was dismissed, against which an appeal is
pending consideration, no right accrues to the petitioner to ask for stay of the
execution proceedings. The learned Court below has rightly considered the
aforesaid aspect of the matter and rejected the application vide impugned
order. The learned Court below has further observed that the lis is pending
consideration since last 20 years, therefore, finding no occasion to allow the
application, the same was rejected. Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. There is no dispute with the fact that earlier civil suit for specific
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20317
4 MP-1640-2025
performance of sale deed has been finally disposed off, against which the
first appeal was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed as abated. The
SLP (Civil) Diary No. 32288 of 2024 filed against the same has also been
dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground of delay vide order
dated 14.08.2024. Thereafter, another civil suit has been filed by the
petitioners seeking possession and permanent injunction wherein an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was filed which was allowed;
against which an appeal is filed which is pending consideration before the
First Additional District Judge, Harda. The fact remains that the earlier
litigation has already attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for
which execution proceedings are pending consideration. The final decree
which has been passed was only to the extent that :
अिभलेख के अवलोकन से दिशत है क डक दनांक 24.06.1999 के
पालन म डक धार ारा म न ू डक धार प को ₹ 10,000/- क
रािश अदा कये जाने पर म न ू डक धार ारा डक धार को
वाद त संप का क जा दान कया जाना है ।
8. In view whereof, the learned Court below has considered the aforesaid
aspect of the matter and has rightly rejected the petitioner's application under
Order 21 Rule 29 read with Section 151 of CPC. Counsel appearing for the
petitioners could not point out that in the event when the earlier litigation has
already attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the execution
proceedings are pending, under what circumstances the execution
proceedings should have been stayed; whether the provisions of Order 21
Rule 29 read with Section 151 of CPC are applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case, he could not place on record any authority to
substantiate his arguments. Under these circumstances, no illegality is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20317
5 MP-1640-2025
committed by the learned Court below in rejecting the petitioner's
application.
9. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty vs Rajendra Shankar Patil,
reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has held that the High Court in exercise of its
power of superintendence cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or
fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts
subordinate to it, is a possible view. The High Court can exercise this power
when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and
courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure
of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. The
learned Court below, in the considered opinion of this Court, has taken a
plausible view which does not require any interference.
10. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
