Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gurudayal Bhargava vs Prakash Babu And Vidhyadevi (Both Are ... on 12 November, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28985
1 MP-5285-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 12 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5285 of 2025
GURUDAYAL BHARGAVA
Versus
PRAKASH BABU AND VIDHYADEVI (BOTH ARE DIED) LRS DIPAK
AGRAWAL
Appearance:
Shri Rishikesh Bohare - Advocate for petitioner.
ORDER
The present miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the petitioner-Judgment Debtor (JD) being aggrieved by
the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the Court of First Additional Judge to the
Court of First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Guna, District Guna in Execution Case
No. 09 of 2021 (arising out of RCSA No. 186 of 2018), whereby the application
filed by the respondents-Decree Holders (DH) under Order VI Rule 17 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") has been allowed.
2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the original
plaintiff, Late Shri Prakash Babu Agrawal, filed a civil suit on 17.07.2018 for
eviction of the present petitioner from the suit house and for recovery of arrears of
rent on the ground of bona fide need. The petitioner filed his written statement and
denied the plaintiff's claim.
3. During the pendency of the said civil suit, both parties entered into a
compromise and filed a joint application for passing a decree in terms thereof. The
learned Trial Court allowed the compromise and passed an award dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28985
2 MP-5285-2025
13.07.2019, whereby it was ordered that the petitioner shall hand over vacant
possession of the suit house to the plaintiff by 30.04.2021 and shall also pay
monthly rent of Rs.1500/- from June 2019.
4. Thereafter, the respondent and his mother, Late Smt. Vidhyadevi, filed an
execution application before the Executing Court for recovery of arrears of rent in
pursuance of the said compromise award dated 13.07.2019, without filing any
application seeking leave for substitution in place of the original decree holder,
Late Shri Prakash Babu, who had died prior to filing of the said execution
proceedings.
5. During pendency of the execution proceedings, Smt. Vidhyadevi also
expired. The respondent then filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
seeking amendment in the execution application by adding a prayer for recovery of
possession of the suit house.
6. The petitioner filed a reply opposing the said application, mainly on the
ground that the execution proceedings themselves were not maintainable since
they had been filed without seeking substitution of the legal representatives of the
deceased decree holder. It was further contended that the original decree was
passed on the basis of the plaintiff's personal bona fide need, which does not
survive after his death, and therefore, the decree is not executable. It was also
submitted that the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC are not applicable to
execution proceedings and hence, the amendment application was liable to be
rejected.
7. The learned Trial Court, however, by the impugned order dated
21.08.2025, allowed the said application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Being
aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28985
3 MP-5285-2025
illegal, without jurisdiction, and contrary to settled law. It is contended that the
Trial Court erred in allowing the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17
CPC by exercising powers under Section 151 CPC, though no such inherent
powers could be invoked when specific provisions exist under the Code. It is
further urged that after the death of the original plaintiff, who had filed the suit for
his personal bona fide need, such need does not survive and therefore, the decree is
incapable of execution. It is also argued that the respondent failed to seek
substitution or impleadment of other legal heirs of the deceased decree holder, and
by allowing the amendment, the very nature of the execution proceedings has been
altered. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
9. Looking to the nature of the case, issuance of notice to the respondents is
not considered necessary.
10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order
as well as documents placed on record.
11. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that an
executing court possesses ample power to allow amendment of an execution
application if such amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy
between the parties and for proper execution of the decree. Procedural laws are
intended to advance justice and not to thwart it. Procedural amendments necessary
to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to settle all disputes in the same lis should
ordinarily be allowed.
12. It is well-settled that execution proceedings are in continuation of the
original proceedings, and technical objections which do not affect the core rights
of the parties should not come in the way of justice. The purpose of Order VI Rule
17 CPC is to enable the court to decide the real controversy effectively. In the
present case, the proposed amendment only seeks to add a prayer for recovery of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28985
4 MP-5285-2025
possession of the suit premises, which flows directly from the compromise decree
itself. Allowing such amendment does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner-
JD. The right to possession of property, once crystallized by a decree, is heritable
and devolves upon the legal representatives of the decree holder. The death of the
decree holder does not extinguish the rights under the decree, which can be
enforced by his legal representatives.
13. In light of the settled legal principles, this Court finds no jurisdictional
error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court
allowing the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The amendment has rightly
been permitted to ensure complete and effective adjudication of the execution
proceedings.
14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the Court
of First Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Guna
in Execution Case No. 09 of 2021 is affirmed.
15. Consequently, this miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner-
Judgment Debtor fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
