Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tulsiram (Dead), Th:Lrs.Ram Prasad vs Kanhaiyalal (Dead), Th:Lrs. Sitaram ... on 27 October, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27074
1 CR-24-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 27th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 24 of 2012
TULSIRAM (DEAD), TH:LRS.RAM PRASAD AND OTHERS
Versus
KANHAIYALAL (DEAD), TH:LRS. SITARAM DIED THROUGH LRS I)
SMT. DAKHABAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Rohit Bansal - Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Yogesh Sinhal - Advocate for LRs. of respondents No. 1 and 2.
ORDER
This civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the
order dated 7/2/2012 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class I, Sheopur, in
Execution Case No. 63A/2002x04, by which application filed by applicant
for dismissal of the execution proceeding has been rejected.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are
that the decree holder had filed a suit for eviction from Khasra Nos. 1012 and
1013. It was the case of the decree holder that applicant is the tenant in the
said premises.
3. Applicant filed his written statement and claimed that he was never
inducted as a tenant. The property in dispute was given to him by the then
zamindar Gangadhar Sharma in Samvat 1997, and the possession was also
given to him.
4. Thus, in the written statement, it was not claimed by applicant that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27074
2 CR-24-2012
he is in possession of Khasra Nos. 1010 and 1011, and not of 1012 and 1013.
Thus, it is clear that plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction of applicant from
Khasra Nos. 1012 and 1013, and applicant, who was the defendant, never
disputed that he is not in possession of Khasra Nos. 1012 and 1013. He never
claimed that Khasra Nos. 1010 and 1011 were given to him by the then
zamindar Gangadhar Sharma.
5. The suit filed by plaintiff was decreed by the trial court by judgment
and decree dated 28/2/2004 which was affirmed up to the stage of High
Court.
6. It appears that the execution proceedings were initiated immediately
after the decree was passed by the trial court, and it is pending for the last 21
years. An objection was raised by the applicant that in fact he is in
possession of Khasra Nos. 1010 and 1011, whereas the decree has been
passed in respect of Khasra Nos. 1012 and 1013, and since the property in
his possession is different from the land in respect of which decree has been
passed, therefore, the execution proceedings cannot proceed. The said
objection was filed on the basis of report of the commission.
7. The trial court, by the impugned order dated 7/2/2012, has rejected
the application on the ground that the similar objection was already
dismissed by the executing court by order dated 13/4/2007.
8. Challenging the order passed by the court below, it is submitted by
counsel for applicant that by order dated 13/4/2007, it was never decided by
the executing court that the land in possession of the applicant is the same
land in respect of which decree was passed, and thus, it is submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27074
3 CR-24-2012
order passed by the executing court is bad in law.
9 . Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for
respondents.
10. Heard learned counsel for parties.
11. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the applicant
is in possession of the land other than the land in respect of which the decree
of eviction has been passed or not?
12. As already pointed out, decree holder of the plaintiff had filed a
suit for eviction of the applicant from Khasra Nos. 1012 and 1013 on the
ground that he was inducted as tenant. It was the case of applicant/defendant
that he was never inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff, but the said land was
given to him by the ex-zamindar. It was never the case of the applicant that
he is not in possession of Khasra Nos. 1012 and 1013 and he is in possession
of Khasra Nos. 1010 and 1011.
13. When the applicant contested the entire case on the ground that the
land in dispute was never let out to him, but he got the land in dispute from
the ex-zamindar and never disputed the identity of land, then this Court is of
considered opinion that merely on the basis of report of local commissioner,
the executing court cannot go beyond the judgment and decree passed by the
trial court which was affirmed up to the stage of High Court. It is well
established principle of law that the executing court cannot go beyond the
decree passed by the civil court. Once the identity of the land in dispute was
never disputed by the applicant in the trial, then he cannot be permitted to
raise that objection merely on the basis of one report submitted by the local
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27074
4 CR-24-2012
commissioner.
14. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
the executing court did not commit any mistake by rejecting the objection
filed by the applicant.
15. It is really surprising that the execution proceedings are pending
for the last 21 years. It is very easy to obtain a decree, but it is very difficult
to get it executed. Accordingly, the interim order passed by this Court is
hereby vacated and the executing court is directed to positively conclude the
execution within a period of six months from today.
16. It is made clear that in case if any objections are filed then the
same shall be decided by the executing court within a period of two days
from the date of filing of such objection and long dates shall not be given by
the executing court.
17. With aforesaid observation, the civil revision is dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
