Uttarakhand High Court
Krishna Pal Sharma vs Jagatnarayan Dwivedi on 7 October, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2831 of 2025
07th October, 2025
Krishna Pal Sharma ...........Petitioner
Versus
Jagatnarayan Dwivedi .............Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Gaurav Panwar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Avidit Noliyal,
Advocate for the petitioner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India by the petitioner-judgment
debtor against the impugned judgment and order dated
08.09.2025 (Annexure No. 9), passed by the learned Civil
Judge (J.D.), Rishikesh, Dehradun, in Misc. Case No.11
of 2025, Krishna Pal Sharma Vs. Jagat Narayan Dwivedi
in Execution Case No. 4 of 2024, Jagat Narayan Dwivedi
Vs. Krishna Pal Sharma.
2. The respondent-decree holder, having been
successful in litigation, has initiated execution
proceedings of the judgment and decree dated
28.02.2017 before the learned trial court, which has been
registered as Execution Case No. 4 of 2024, Jagat
Narayan Dwivedi vs. Krishna Pal Sharma. Though the
petitioner-judgment debtor has lost from all the courts,
in order to stall the execution of the judgment and
decree, he moved an application under Section 47 of the
C.P.C., which was registered as Misc. Case No. 11 of
2025, Krishna Pal Sharma vs. Jagat Narayan Dwivedi.
3. In the said application, the petitioner-
judgment debtor has taken the plea that, in the guise of
executing the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017,
the respondent-decree holder is demolishing the rented
part of the property, which is beyond the scope of the
execution of the decree. The said application was rejected
by the impugned order dated 08.09.2025. Feeling
aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated
08.09.2025, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
argued that, in the guise of executing the judgment and
decree dated 28.02.2017, the court Ameen is demolishing
a partition of the rented accommodation of the petitioner-
judgment debtor, which cannot be permitted, as it is a
settled proposition of law that the executing court cannot
go beyond the decree.
5. I have perused the judgment and order dated
08.09.2025, whereby the application filed under Section
47 of the C.P.C. by the petitioner-judgment debtor was
rejected.
6. The learned executing court has dealt with the
objections raised by the petitioner-judgment debtor in
detail and has rightly concluded that the application
deserves to be rejected, and accordingly, the same was
dismissed.
7. However, the interest of the petitioner has been
safeguarded by the executing court by observing that the
court Ameen should be provided with a copy of the
application annexed with the original suit, so that the
decree is executed only to the extent it has been passed.
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the
opinion that no interference is warranted.
9. The executing court is directed to execute the
judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017 strictly in
accordance with law and only to the extent it has been
passed.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.10.2025
SK
