Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bharmal vs Lrs. Of Khema (2024:Rj-Jd:8120) on 15 February, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:8120]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1863/2024
1. Bharmal S/o Harji Ram, aged 85 years, R/o Dhabhal,
Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.)
2. Bhema Ram (Deceased), R/o Dungra Goliya Sanchore
Through His Legal Representatives -
2/1. Vagta Ram S/o Bhema Ram, aged 60 years, R/o Dungra
Ka Goliya, Sanchore, Distt. Jalore
2/2. Parkha Ram S/o Bhema Ram, aged 42 years, R/o
Dungra Ka Goliya, Sanchore, Distt. Jalore
2/3. Prema Ram S/o Bhema Ram, aged 40 years, R/o Dungra
Ka Goliya, Sanchore, Distt. Jalore
2/4. Sadu Devi W/o Bhema Ram, (Deceased), R/o Dungra Ka
Goliya, Sanchore, Distt. Jalore
3. Jaga Ram S/o Moti Ram (Deceased), Through His Legal
Representatives -
3/1. Damra Ram S/o Jaga Ram, aged 43 years, R/o Dungra
Ka Goliya, Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.)
3/2. Kanji Ram S/o Jaga Ram, aged 40 years, R/o Dungra Ka
Goliya, Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.)
3/3. Puro W/o Jaga Ram, aged 70 years, R/o Dungra Ka
Goliya, Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.)
4. Okha Ram S/o Kaja Ram, aged 40 years, R/o Dungra Ka
Goliya, Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.)
5. Devu W/o Kaja Ram, aged 75 years, R/o Dungra Ka
Goliya, Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.)
6. Ishra Ram S/o Kaja Ram, aged 51 years, R/o Dungra Ka
Goliya, Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
Khema, S/o Meghraj (Deceased) R/o Pahadpura, Sanchore
Through His Legal Representatives -
1/1. Kheta Ram S/o Late Khema Ram, R/o Pahadpura,
Sanchore, District Sanchore.
(Downloaded on 15/02/2024 at 08:51:14 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8120] (2 of 12) [CW-1863/2024]
1/2. Hema S/o Meghraj, (Deceased) Through His Lrs
1/2/1. Mahesh Kumar S/o Late Hema, R/o Pahadpura,
Sanchore, District Sanchore.
1/2/2. Uma Ram S/o Late Hema, R/o Pahadpura, Sanchore,
District Sanchore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Shrimali
Mr. Teja Ram
Mr. Rishabh Shrimali.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
JUDGEMENT
Reserved on 09/02/2024
Pronounced on 15/02/2024
1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioners/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India seeking following relief:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on
behalf of petition that the writ petition may kindly be
allowed with costs throughout and the impugned
order dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure-12) passed by the
Senior Civil Judge, Sanchore in Civil Execution Case
No.06/2023 (CIS No.06/2023) may kindly be quashed
and set aside.
Any other appropriate order or direction, which
this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be
passed in favour of the petitioners. Costs of the writ
petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed
a suit for eviction against the petitioners/defendants, which was
decreed by learned trial court on 16.01.2016 (Annexure-1)
whereby the petitioners/defendants have been directed to provide
[2024:RJ-JD:8120] (3 of 12) [CW-1863/2024]
the way from Points 'E to F' from their araji at the expenses of the
petitioners in order to give the respondents right of easement and
peaceful way. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a first appeal which
was however dismissed for non-prosecution and subsequently, the
petitioners filed a restoration application, which is pending before
the concerned appellate court.
3. Thereafter, the respondents filed an Execution Petition
No.21/2022 before the learned Execution Court, which was also
decreed in favour of the Respondents and the petition was
disposed off vide order dated 07.10.2022 (Annexure-2). Due to
the inaction of the petitioners, the respondents further filed an
Execution Petition No. 43/2022 which was also disposed vide order
dated 17.02.2023. Further, the respondents have filed an
Execution Petition No. 06/2023 under Order 21 Rule 32 and Rule
11A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to
as 'CPC') wherein the learned Executing Court issued a warrant of
attachment (Annexure-3) and also issued show cause notices
(Annexure-4) under Order 21 Rule 37 of CPC, to the petitioners.
4. Thereafter, the petitioners have challenged the said order by
way of Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court, and vide order
dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure-5), the Hon'ble High Court has
directed the Dy. Government Counsel to assist the Court along
with Tehsildar Sanchore, Jalore District with respect to
ascertaining whether the way in question is open or not. The
Hon'ble High Court, after taking into consideration the Site Report,
produced by the Dy. Government Counsel, which indicates that
[2024:RJ-JD:8120] (4 of 12) [CW-1863/2024]
the way is open from Point 'B to C' and 'C to D', vide order dated
19.05.2023 (Annexure-7), observed that for the time being, the
Revenue Officer has to ensure that the way ABCD remains open
till the next date and the status quo has to be maintained till the
matter is brought before the Hon'ble Court on 25.07.2023.
5. On 31.05.2023 (Annexure-9), the petitioners sought
withdrawal of the said writ petition with liberty to file an
application under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 47 and 151
of CPC, and the permission was granted by the Hon'ble Court, with
a direction to the learned Executing Court to decide the matter
within 90 days. The application has not yet been decided and is
still pending. The respondents, have also filed a rejoinder and
mentioned in their reply to the said application that the provisions
of Order 21 Rule 37 of CPC cannot be applied to the present case
since the decree which has been passed by the learned Trial
Court, the proceedings for execution has not been provided under
Order 21 Rule 27 of CPC. The learned Executing Court, vide the
order dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure-12) have allowed the
application filed by the respondents and ordered for the arrest of
the petitioners through arrest warrants for a period of 40 days as
a civil imprisonment. Thus, being aggrieved of the order dated
25.01.2024, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted
that the petitioners have not disobeyed the decree, inasmuch as
the directions under the decree were only to the extent that the
petitioners shall not obstruct the way from Points 'E' to 'F', as
reflected in Exhibit-7 and further the obstruction, if any, would be
[2024:RJ-JD:8120] (5 of 12) [CW-1863/2024]
removed by the petitioners at their own expenses. Learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no obstruction
made by the petitioners on the way from Point 'E' to 'F' and,
therefore, the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 is absolutely bad
as the said fact has not been appreciated.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in
the impugned order, the learned trial court has categorically
observed that the way from 'F' to 'D' was found without any
obstruction and in the decree dated 16.01.2016, the Trial Court
has directed the petitioners not to obstruct the way from Points 'E'
to 'F' and thus the petitioners have not disobeyed the directions
passed in the decree. Learned counsel for the petitioners also
submitted that in the impugned order it has been observed by the
learned Trial court that the way from 'D' to 'C' was found to be
obstructed by the petitioners, however, in the decree dated
16.01.2016, there are no directions given to the petitioners for not
obstructing the way from 'D' to 'C'. Thus, the impugned order
deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the
petitioners also submitted that in the present case, the provisions
laid down under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC are not applicable, as the
execution proceedings are not provided under the said provision,
however, the respondents have preferred the application under
Order 21 Rule 37 CPC for execution of the decree.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the
petitioners had preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.6333/2023 before this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble
Court after perusing the site report, so produced, found that the
[2024:RJ-JD:8120] (6 of 12) [CW-1863/2024]
way ABCD is open from point 'B' to 'C' and 'C' to 'D', but there is a
wire mess on point 'A' and 'B' and thus there was no obstruction
made by the petitioners on the way in dispute and thus the
impugned order dated 25.01.2024 deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated
16.01.2016 (Annex.1), had passed a decree in favour of
respondents/plaintiff while granting mandatory injunction to the
effect that the way in question, which is shown as 'C' to 'E' in the
map Exhibit-7, is declared as way of easement of the
respondents/plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the respondents also
submitted that the petitioners were asked to remove the
obstruction but the petitioners resisted and declined to remove the
obstructions from the way. He further submitted that the
petitioners have willfully disobeyed the decree dated 16.01.2016
passed by the learned trial court and thus the impugned order
dated 25.01.2024 (Annex.16) has rightly been passed.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the
petitioners have not come with clean hands before this Court,
inasmuch as the petitioners have concealed the fact that they had
preferred an application under Order 21 Rule 40 read with Section
151 CPC before the Executing Court while mentioning therein that
the petitioners have not obstructed the way, which was directed to
be kept open by the learned trial court and thus the respondents
have misled the court and the petitioners have been ordered to be
arrested. He further submits that the said application filed by the
[2024:RJ-JD:8120] (7 of 12) [CW-1863/2024]
petitioners came to be rejected on 31.01.2024 and the petitioners
were in the knowledge of said order, but the petitioners chose not
to disclose the same before this Court and have not even
challenged the said order. Thus the present writ petition deserves
to be dismissed on this ground itself.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the
learned trial court after passing the impugned order dated
25.01.2024 had posted the matter on 29.01.2024 while issuing
warrant of arrest against the petitioners. He submitted that on
29.01.2024 when the matter was listed before the Trial Court, the
petitioners did not remain present and thus before passing the
order of detention, the petitioner had been afforded opportunity of
hearing, but they chose not to avail the same. Learned counsel for
the respondents also submitted that a bare look at the impugned
order dated 25.01.2024 shows that before passing the said order,
the court below had granted the petitioners ample opportunity to
comply with the directions passed in decree dated 16.01.2016,
however, they willfully disobeyed the decree and despite several
opportunities being granted, did not remove the obstructions
created by them on the way in question. Learned counsel for the
respondents thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
12. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties and have perused the material available on record.
13. This Court finds that the plea raised by the petitioners that
before passing the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 (Annex.12),
the petitioners were not afforded sufficient opportunity to defend
themselves, is misplaced, inasmuch as the respondents/plaintiffs
[2024:RJ-JD:8120] (8 of 12) [CW-1863/2024]
seeking execution of the decree, thrice filed execution petitions,
and the same were duly contested by the petitioners.
14. The conduct of the petitioners dis-entitle them from seeking
any relief from this Court. The petitioners in order to flout the
decree passed by the competent court have availed their remedies
viz. they had filed various misc. applications with a view to cause
delay in the execution proceedings and have also approached this
Court by filing writ petition, referred to supra. In the impugned
order dated 25.01.2024 (Annex.12), the learned Trial Court has
recorded various instances/facts that had taken place during
execution proceedings, some of such instances, showing scant
disregard towards the decree passed, by the petitioners, are
quoted herein below: -
"fjiksVZ fnukad 17-09-2022 ds vuqlkj कुछ समय बाद थोड़ा
रास्ता खोला तब मद्युनगण दौड़ते हुए मौके पर आए और जेसीबी
वापस घम
ु ाने को कहा। मद्यन
ु द्वारा पलि
ु स के रूबरू खन
ू -खराबा करने
की धमकी दी गई व जेसीबी चालक को धमकाया गया। तत्पश्चात ् एक
वद्ध
ृ औरत व आदमी जेसीबी के सामने आकर बैठ गए और रास्ता खाली
नहीं करने दिया तथा न्यायालय का कब्जा वारण्ट सवार बब्बाराम के
हाथ से छीनकर मद्युनगण ओखाराम ने ले लिया व वापस मांगने पर
दिया नहीं व कहा कि आदे श झूठा है । पलि
ु स द्वारा समझाइश करने पर
भी नहीं माने । माहौल ज्यादा खराब होने की संभावना से जेसीबी वापस
ले ली गई। पलि
ु स द्वारा और इमदाद बुलाई गई, जिन्होंने समझाइश
की, लेकिन मद्युन रास्ता खोलने को राजी नहीं हुए और कहा कि मर
जाएंगे, लेकिन रास्ता नहीं खोलेंगे।
xxx
"दिनांक 17.02.2023 को सहायक नाजिर सवार बब्बाराम के
साथ न्यायालय के आदे श कमांक 221/16.02.2023 की पालना में
पलि
ु स थाना सांचौर के प्रभारी श्री सत्यदे वसिंह, पलि
ु स उपनिरीक्षक तथा
भारी संख्या में पलि
ु स जाब्ता एवं एक महिला कानि. के साथ वारण्ट
की। तामील प्रकिया शरू
ु की गई एवं वादी एवं प्रतिवादी पक्ष को आदे श
[2024:RJ-JD:8120] (9 of 12) [CW-1863/2024]
पढ़कर सुनाया गया एवं नोटिस सूचना जारी कर प्रतिवादी के परिवार
वालों को हस्ताक्षर करने को कहा गया तथा हस्ताक्षर करने से मना
किया तो नोटिस चस्पा किया जाकर कार्यवाही शुरू की गई। समय दिए
जाने के बावजूद बाड़ नहीं हटाने पर जेसीबी नंबर पीजे 16 ईए 0190 व
जेसीबी चालक परमेश्वरलाल की सहायता से अवरुद्ध मार्ग आवागमन के
आने-जाने के लिए सुचारू रूप से खुलवाया गया एवं उक्त रिपोर्ट
न्यायालय में पेश की गई। जिस पर उक्त इजराय प्रकरण बअनवान
खेताराम वगैरह बनाम वगताराम वगैरह इजराय प्रकरण संख्या
43/2022, सीआईएस नंबर 43/2022 दिनांक 17.02.2023 को
इजराय की पर्ण
ू तष्टि
ु में पालना होने पर इजराय पत्रावली फैसल शम
ु ार
की जाकर बाद तकमील दाखिल दफ्तर की गई।
xxx
आदे श 21 नियम 37 सीपीसी के नोटिस का तामील प्राप्त होने के
पश्चात ् भी मद्युनगण में से कोई भी न्यायालय में उपसंजात (Appear) नहीं
हुआ व गिरफ् तारी के विरुद्ध कोई हे तक
ु दर्शित नहीं किया गया तथा अपने
अधिवक्ता श्री प्रेमसिंह अचलपुर के मार्फ त ् अपने हस्ताक्षर एवं अंगुष्ठ निशानी
सहित मद्युनगण द्वारा न्यायालय में जवाब पेश किया गया जो कि दिनांक
18.07.2023 की आदे शिका के अनस
ु ार खारिज किया जा चुका था। तत्पश्चात ्
मद्युनगण की ओर से माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय में एकल पीट
सिविल याचिका संख्या 6333/2023 भारमल वगैरह बनाम खेताराम वगैरह में
पारित आदे श दिनांक 19.05. 2023 की प्रति दिनांक 24.05.2023 को
अधिवक्ता मद्युनगण द्वारा पेश की गई थी, जिसमें माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा
रास्ता ए, बी, सी, डी खल
ु ा रखने बाबत ् आदे श किया गया एवं आवश्यकता होने
पर पुलिस इमदाद लेने के संबंध में आदे श किया गया तथा इसी रिट याचिका में
दिनांक 12.06.2023 को अधिवक्ता मद्युनगण श्री प्रेमसिंह अचलपुर द्वारा
माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 31.05.2023 को पारित
आदे श की प्रति के साथ एक प्रार्थना पत्र कुर्क शुदा आराजी को कुर्कीमुक्त करने
हे तु पेश किया एवं साथ में प्रार्थना पत्र की अर्जेंट सुनवाई हे तु निवेदन किया गया
तथा माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा इस रिट याचिका को अंतिम
रूप से विनिश्चित करते समय यह आदे श दिया गया था कि
याचिकाकर्ता/मद्युनगण याचिका को प्रत्याहृत (Withdraw) कर रहे हैं तथा
याचिकाकर्ता / मद्यन
ु गण निष्पादन न्यायालय में आदे श 21 नियम 58
सपठित धारा 47 एवं 151 सीपीसी के तहत प्रार्थना पेश करना चाहते हैं। इस
आधार पर न्यायालय द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा मद्युनगण की
ओर से प्रस्तुत रिट याचिका खारिज की गई एवं याचिकाकर्ता को निष्पादन
न्यायालय में आदे श 21 नियम 58 सपठित धारा 47 एवं 157 सीपीसी का
प्रार्थना पत्र न्यायालय में पेश करने का निर्देश दिया गया।
XXX
[2024:RJ-JD:8120] (10 of 12) [CW-1863/2024]
दिनांक 01.11. 2023 को न्यायालय के हस्ताक्षर एवं मुद्रा से पुनः कब्जा
वारण्ट जारी किया गया, जिस पर न्यायालय हाजा के सहायक नाजिर श्री
नेमीचंद तथा सवार बब्बाराम के साथ कब्जा वारण्ट की तामील हे तु मौका वार्ड
नंबर 6 माखप
ु रु ा गए। मौके पर रास्ता सी से डी बाड़ एवं कांटों से अवरुद्ध किया
गया था एवं मौके पर मद्युनगण मौजूद थे, जिन्हें समझाइश कर रास्ता खोलने
के लिए कहा तो उन्होंने कहा कि यहां पर कोई रास्ता नहीं है , हम जेल जाने को
तैयार है , हम रास्ता नहीं खोलेंगे। फिर डिकीदार द्वारा बताए गए रास्ते एवं
नक्शा अनुसार ई स्थान पर गए जहां बीच रास्ते में खाई खोदी हुई थी एवं
झाड़ियों से रास्ता अवरुद्ध किया हुआ था। इस पर मद्यन
ु गण में से भारमल पत्र
ु
हरजीराम एवं कानजी राम पुत्र जगाजी उपस्थित थे, जिन्होंने रास्ता ई खोलने में
आपत्ति नहीं जताई। इस पर उक्त स्थान पर बनी खाई को डिकीदा द्वारा बल
ु ाए
गए मजदरू ों से भरवाई गई एवं झाड़ियां हटवा गई। आगे रास्ता स्थान एफ से डी
तक खुला मिला तथा डी से सी तक रास्ता तारबंदी से बंद था तथा बीच रास्ते में
पशु बंधे हुए थे, जिन्हें मद्युनगण ने हटाने से इंकार कर दिया। मौके पर लड़ाई
झगड़ा होने की संभावना से रास्ता सी से डी तक नहीं खोला गया। "
15. This Court further finds that the petitioners have not come
with clean hands before this Hon'ble Court, inasmuch as the
petitioners have concealed the fact of dismissal of their application
preferred under Order 21 Rule 40 read with Section 151 CPC vide
order dated 31.01.2024, whereby the learned Executing Court has
ordered for arrest of the petitioners and the said order dated
31.01.2024 has not been challenged by the petitioners. Therefore,
on the ground of concealment of material facts, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.
16. Insofar as the objection raised by the petitioners with regard
to applicability of provisions of Order 21 Rule 37 CPC, as the same
did not deal with the execution proceedings, is concerned, the said
objection is not sustainable, inasmuch as from a bare perusal of
the documents placed on record it is reflected that inadvertently,
the respondents while filing application have mentioned the
[2024:RJ-JD:8120] (11 of 12) [CW-1863/2024]
provisions as 'Order 21 Rule 37 CPC' instead of 'Order 21 Rule 32
CPC'.
17. As far as submission of the petitioners in respect to order
dated 25.01.2024 ordering petitioners' detention in civil prison is
concerned, the same has rightly been ordered under Order 21
Rule 32 (1) CPC, as the petitioners after being given ample
opportunities failed to obey the decree and thus have willfully
disobeyed the directions given by the learned Trial Court by way
of decree. Order 21 Rule 32 (1) CPC reads as under:
"32. Decree for specific performance for
restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction.-- (1)
Where the party against whom a decree for the
specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of
conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed,
has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has
wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced 1
[in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal
rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case
of a decree for the specific performance of a contract
or for an injunction] by his detention in the civil prison,
or by the attachment of his property, or by both."
18. This Court, however, finds that as far as detainment in civil
prison under Section 74 CPC is concerned, once the Court is
satisfied that judgment debtor(s) has/have resisted or obstructed
without any just cause in execution of the decree, the said
detainment may be extended to thirty days, however, in the
present case, the learned Trial Court has in the impugned order
dated 25.01.2024 ordered the petitioners to be detained in civil
prison for a term of forty days. Section 74 of CPC reads thus:
"74. Where the Court is satisfied that the holder
of a decree for the possession of immovable property
or that the purchaser of immovable property sold in
execution of a decree has been resisted or obstructed
in obtaining possession of the property by the
judgment-debtor or some person on his behalf and
[2024:RJ-JD:8120] (12 of 12) [CW-1863/2024]
that such resistance or obstruction was without any
just cause, the Court may, at the instance of the
decree-holder or purchaser, order the judgment-
debtor or such other person to be detained in the civil
prison for a term which may extend to thirty days and
may further direct that the decree-holder or purchaser
be put into possession of the property."
19. As the maximum detainment in civil prison has been said to
be thirty days, thus the detainment ordered for petitioners for a
period of forty days, is not in consonance with the provisions of
Section 74 CPC and, therefore, the impugned order dated
25.01.2024 is modified only to the extent of detainment of
petitioners under civil prison, which would for a period of thirty
days from the date of arrest.
20. The writ petition is thus partly allowed. Stay Petition as also
other application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
Reserved-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
