Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ishraji Bai vs Late Krishna Devi Through Her Lrs ... on 9 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25474
1 MP-2588-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 9th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2588 of 2025
SMT. ISHRAJI BAI AND OTHERS
Versus
LATE KRISHNA DEVI THROUGH HER LRS SHIVCHARAN AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ramakant Awasthy - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri D.K. Dixit - Senior Advocate with Shri S.K. Jain for respondents.
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the instant Miscellaneous Petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated
08.04.2025 passed by the Second District Judge Harda (MP), in
execution case number EX.A/300011/1986 whereby, in the pending
execution proceedings, the application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC read
with section 47 CPC, filed by the petitioners has been returned with an
observation for filing the same as separate MJC in view of the provisions
contained under Rule 372 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Court Rules
1961.
2. The facts of the case in short 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25474
2 MP-2588-2025
who passed the judgment and decree dated 24.06.1999 in favour of the
defendant Smt. Krishna devi (since dead).
3. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal bearing FA No.
402/1999 before this court wherein, initially an interim order staying the
execution proceedings was passed but subsequently, the appeal was
dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2022. Accordingly, the execution
proceedings were restarted and the SLP preferred against the said order
passed by this court was also dismissed.
4. In the pending execution proceedings, an application under Order
21 Rule 97 read with section 47 CPC was filed by the petitioners herein
objecting to the execution of the decree and resisting the taking over of
the possession on various grounds which not only touched the merits of
the claim which already stood concluded vide judgment and decree dated
24.06.1999 up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court but also resisted the
execution proceedings on the ground that the LRs of the decree holder
are being illegally permitted to execute the decree in question.
5. The aforesaid IA came to be disposed of by the learned Executing
Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 on the ground that in terms of Rule
372 of the MP Civil Court Rules 1961, such an application is required to
be filed by way of separate MJC and accordingly, the IA was returned to
the petitioners for filing it as separate MJC.
6. It has been contended by the petitioners that the order dated 08.04.
2025 passed by the learned Executing Court is per se illegal in as much
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25474
3 MP-2588-2025
as the object and spirit of Order 21 Rule 97 read with section 47 has not
been taken into consideration as according to the petitioners, all question
arising out of the parties to the suit in which decree was passed or their
representatives and relating to the execution are to be decided by the
executing court and therefore, the learned Executing Court has
committed an error in returning the said application to the petitioners
citing Rule 372 of MP Civil Court Rules, 1961.
7. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Shri D. K. Dixit assisted
by Shri S. K. Jain, who appeared for the respondents on advance
instructions submitted that after the dismissal of the first appeal by this
court on 29.08.2022 and the dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the execution proceedings are being objected/resisted by
the petitioners herein by way of filing number of frivolous applications
including an application under Order 21 Rule 29 and all such
applications have been rejected by the learned Executing Court against
which, the petitioners herein have filed three separate miscellaneous
petitions bearing M.P. No. 3714/ 2024, M.P. No. 5018/2024 and M.P.
No. 1640/2025 and all the miscellaneous petitions have been dismissed
by this court by taking into consideration the fact that the decree of
possession in favour of defendants has been affirmed upto the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and therefore, the order impugned in the instant
miscellaneous petition does not suffer from any palpable illegality
warranting any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25474
4 MP-2588-2025
Court and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. The three
separate orders dated 29.04.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in M.P. No. 5018/2024, M.P.No. 3714/2024 and
M.P.No.1640/2025 were also produced by the Senior Counsel appearing
for the respondents for perusal of this Court.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. The careful perusal of the contents of the application under Order 21
Rule 97 read with section 47 CPC filed by the petitioners before the
learned Executing Court and also three separate orders dated 29.04.2025
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.P. No. 5018/2024,
M.P. No. 3714/2024 and M.P.No.1640/2025 clearly reveals that after the
passing of the judgment and decree dated 24.06.1999, the plaintiff
Nathulal, has also filed a Civil Suit bearing C.S. No. 8A/2013 before
Civil Judge, Khirakiya for possession and permanent injunction, which
came to be dismissed vide the order dated 07.07.2023.
10. In so far as the merits of the judgment and decree dated 24.06.1999
are concerned, they have been affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. The execution proceedings are being continuously resisted by the
petitioners herein by way of filing repeated objections and even the
averments of the instant application under Order 21 Rule 97 read with
Section 47 CPC is not only an attempt to re-agitate the issue finally
decided by the decree dt.24.06.1999 but are also similar to the objections
already rejected by the learned Executing Court while considering earlier
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25474
5 MP-2588-2025
applications including the objection of continuation of the execution
proceedings by the LR's of the defendant which orders of the learned
Executing Court have been affirmed by the coordinate bench of this
Hon'ble Court in the above referred miscellaneous petitions filed by the
petitioners. Be that as it may.
11. Since the learned Executing Court had relied upon Rule 372 of the
MP Civil Court Rules 1961 and has permitted the petitioner to file a
separate MJC, which appears to be in terms of Rule 372(10) of the MP
Civil Court Rules 1961, providing for registration of a separate MJC on
applications under Order 97 Rule 21 complaining of resistance to
possession and since the merits of the application filed by the petitioners
have not been dwelled upon by the learned executing court, the
impugned order does not appear to cause any prejudice to the rights of
the petitioner and therefore, the same cannot be faulted with.
12. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini
Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC
329 has held that the High Court in exercise of powers of
superintendence cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or facts or
just because another view than the one taken by the tribunal or courts
subordinate to it is a possible view. The scope of interference of the
High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been held to be limited. The High Court can
exercise this power when there is patent perversity in the orders of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25474
6 MP-2588-2025
Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and
manifest failure of justice or 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. However it goes without saying that in case any separate
MJC, in terms of the observations in the impugned order dt.18.04.2025
is filed by the petitioners, it shall be open for the learned executing court
to dwell upon the same independently, in accordance with law.
13. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as
to cost.
(AMIT SETH)
V. JUDGE
RC
