Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar Choudhary @ Rahul Kumar vs Dr. Gyan Kumari Rai on 1 July, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.198 of 2025
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Choudhary @ Rahul Kumar son of Sublendra Narayan
Choudhary resident of Village Parora, P.S.- K. Nagar, District Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Dr. Gyan Kumari Rai so called wife of Late Dr. Srikant Choudhary, resident
of Village Ganeshpur, P.S. K.Nagar, District Purnea.
2. Vishal Chaudhary son of Late Dr. Srikant Choudhary resident of village
Ganeshpur, P.S. K, Nagar, District Purnea, presently residing at Vipul Home
Society, Sector-48, Gurugram, Haryana.
3. Ekta Chaudhary wife of late Dr. Srikant Choudhary resident of village
Ganeshpur, P.S. K, Nagar, District Purnea, presently residing at Vipul Home
Society, Sector-48, Gurugram, Haryana.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vaidehi Raman Pd. Singh, Advocate
Mr.Adarsh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-07-2025
The record taken up on mentioning being made on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I
intend to dispose of the instant petition at the stage of admission
itself.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
13.10.2023
passed by the learned Sub Judge-1, Purnea in
Money Execution Case No.10/2021 whereby and whereunder
the application filed by the petitioner, who is judgment-debtor
before the learned executing court, under Section 47 of the Code
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.198 of 2025 dt.01-07-2025
of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has
been rejected.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has challenged substitution of the respondent no.1
in place of deceased decree-holder on the ground that the
respondent no.1 was not the wife of deceased decree-holder. The
deceased decree-holder Dr. Srikant Choudhary was married with
one Ekta Choudhary and she was legally wedded wife of the
deceased decree-holder. But the respondent no.1 claimed herself
to be wife on the basis of a document where the status of the
deceased was written as a divorcee. However, no papers for
divorce were produced. When the petitioner challenged the
status of the respondent no.1, it was incumbent upon the learned
executing court to inquire into the matter as the objection has
been taken under Section 47 of the Code and every question
arising out of an execution matter is to be decided by the same
court. The learned executing court ought to have decided
whether respondent no.1 was legal representative of decree-
holder or not and this issue was not considered by the learned
executing court.
5. Perused the record.
6. From perusal of record and the impugned order, I
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.198 of 2025 dt.01-07-2025
find that the learned executing court proceeded in the matter on
the basis of documents submitted by the respondent no.1. One
such document is stated to be marriage certificate and in the said
certificate, it was mentioned that the deceased decree-holder
was a divorcee on the date of marriage. Further pension papers
of the deceased decree-holder also attached showing that
respondent no.1 was entitled to receive monthly pension in case
of death of Dr. Srikant Choudhary, the decree-holder (deceased).
When there is no other material produced by the petitioner to
show that the respondent no.1 was not the wife of deceased
decree-holder and the learned executing court proceeded in the
matter having regard to the documents produced before it, there
is hardly any occasion for this Court to interfere with such order.
Moreover, when the respondent no.1 is beneficiary in pension
papers of the deceased decree-holder, this clinches the issue in
her favour.
7. In the light of discussion made here-in-above, I
have no hesitation in holding that the learned executing court
has not committed any illegality or irregularity and there
appears no error of jurisdiction so as to interfere with the
impugned order and hence, the impugned order dated
13.10.2023 passed by learned Sub Judge-1, Purnea in Money
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.198 of 2025 dt.01-07-2025
Execution Case No.10/2021 is affirmed.
8. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same is
dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 01.07.2025
Transmission Date NA
