Narendra Kumar vs Prem Prakash
2021 Latest Caselaw 18902 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 18902 Raj
Judgement Date : 13 December, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narendra Kumar vs Prem Prakash on 13 December, 2021

Bench: Sudesh Bansal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 74/2021

Narendra Kumar S/o Late Sh. Bhanwar Das, aged about 45 Years, Kanod, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Prem Prakash S/o Late Kamal Das, Kanod, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.

2. Rameshwar S/o Bhanwar Das, Kanod, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.

3. Vinod S/o Bhanwar Das, Kanod, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.

4. Vijay Prakash S/o Bhanwar Das, Kanod, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.

5. Smt. Mansha W/o Raghuveer Dass, Balotra, District Barmer.

6. Smt. Girja W/o Jagdish Vaishnav, Balotra, District Barmer

7. Yogeshwar Singh Sarangdevot S/o Maharawal Pratap Singh Sarangdevot, Rajmahal, Kanod, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. R.S. Mankad



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                        Order

13/12/2021

This revision petition has been filed by the defendant

judgment debtor Narendra Kumar assailing the order dated

24.08.2021, whereby and where under, his application dated

21.12.2020 filed under Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

It appears that petitioner filed an application dated

21.12.2020 with a prayer that the execution of the decree dated

(2 of 3) [CR-74/2021]

11.12.2015 be dismissed as this decree has been modified in

appeal vide judgment dated 09.03.2017, and therefore, the only

decree passed by the appellate court dated 09.03.2017 can be put

for execution and not the decree dated 11.12.2015 passed by trial

Court.

Heard the counsel for petitioner and perused the material

available on record.

It appears that the trial Court (Senior Civil Judge, Kanod,

District Udaipur) passed a judgment and decree dated 11.12.2015

to the following effect:

"Qyr% oknh dk okn fo#) izfroknhx.k Lohdkj dj bl izdkj ls fMdzh fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh xksiky th egkjkt eafnj dh lsok iwtk dk vksljk izfro"kZ jksVs'ku ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxk ,oa eafnj esa vkus okys p<+kos ,oa eafnj dh laifRr] Hkxoku dh ewfrZ ij p<+k;s tkus okys tsojkr ds laHkkfor nq:i;ksx ds fuokj.k ds fy;s ,d pkj&ikap lnL;ksa dh lfefr dk xBu fd;k tkosa rkfd og lfefr vksljs ds ysunsu ds le; Hkxoku ds tsoj ,oa eafnj dh leLr izdkj dh laifRr dh ns[kjs[k dj ldsA eafnj dh ns[kjs[k lfefr ds varxZr jgsxhA eafnj dh laifRr ij LokfeRo xksiky th Hkxoku dh ewfrZ dk jgsxk ,oa bl ij dksbZ i{kdkj LokfeRo ugha trk;sxkA eafnj dh laifRr esa fdlh izdkj dh deh&cslh ds fy, ftl O;fDr dk vksljk gS] og mRrjnk;h gksxkA [kpkZ i{kdkjku~ viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA rnkuqlkj fMdzh ipkZ rS;kj fd;k tkosaA"

This judgment and decree was put to challenge before the

appellate court and in appeal, same has been modified in following

manner vide order dated 09.03.2017:

"vihykFkhZ ;ksxs'ojflag lkjsxnsoksr dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ofj"B flfoy U;k;k/kh'k] dkuksM }kjk izdj.k la[;k [email protected] bZ- nh- izseizdk'k cuke HkWojnkl dh ctk; okfjlku o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 11&12&2015 esa iwtk ds vksljs ds gLrkUrj.k ds iz;kstu ls desVh dk tks xBu fd;k x;k gS] ml lhek rd iqf"V dh tkrh gSA vkykSP; fu.kZ; o fMdzh esa vkns'k dk ;g Hkkx fd ^^eafnj dh ns[kjs[k lfefr ds varxZr jgsxhA eafnj dh laifRr ij Lokfero xksiky th Hkxoku dh ewfrZ dk jgsxk ,oa bl ij dksbZ i{kdkj LokfeRo ugha trk;sxk** dh lhek rd vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA

(3 of 3) [CR-74/2021]

;gkW ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd bl fu.kZ; dk ;g vFkZ ugha fy;k tk ldsxk fd bl U;k;ky; us fookfnr eafnj ds LokfeRo dks ysdj dksbZ vfHker fn;k gSA [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk viuk ogu djsaxsA la'kksf/kr fMdzh ipkZ rS;kj gksA bl fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr ds lkFk ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh vfoyEc ykSVk;h tkosA"

A perusal of the modification reveals that there is no

modification in the terms of decree, which is sought to be

executed by way of execution petition as this part has been

affirmed by the appellate Court also.

Thus, the application filed by petitioner has rightly been

dismissed by the execution court. This Court does not find any

jurisdictional error much less illegality or perversity in the

impugned judgment.