Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Order reserved on 07.05.2025 Order pronounced on 04.09.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP No. 6055 of 2006 D.P. Sharaf S/o Shri Khatanand Sharaf, aged About 48 Years R/o Q.No. E- 22, 15 Block S.E.C.L. Colony, Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner Bharat Petrolium Corp Limit. 4 And 6 Bhawan, Bellard Estate, Karim Bhai Road Mumbai. Marfat - B Krishnamurti Aam Mukhtayar Evam Territory, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Bijali Nagar Bhilai 3 Jila Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Shri D.P. Saraf, petitioner in person For Respondent : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) C A V Order Case of the petitioner in brief is that the decretal amount in pursuance of the decree dated 31.12.2005 passed by District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 7A/1999 and also in pursuance of the decree passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 69- A/1998 has not been deposited by the respondent. 2. Initially the petitioner being the co-owner of the property in question. His father and other family members had filed a civil suit for 2 vacant possession, arrears of rent and compensation which was registered as Civil Suit No. 69-A/1998. Vide order dated 1.12.1998 learned Civil Judge passed the judgment and decree partly allowed the same and directed that the defendant should pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 2175/- to the plaintiffs. Against the said judgment and decree the plaintiffs preferred a civil appeal before the District Judge, Bilaspur who vide order dated 31.12.2005 allowed the same and decree for vacant possession and also for damages of Rs. 1,000/- per month has been passed against the defendant till delivery of possession. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred the second appeal. 3. The petitioner has preferred this petition on the ground that the respondent has not deposited the decretal amount pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2005 passed in Civil Appeal 7-A/1999 and Civil Suit No. 69-A/1998 passed by Civil Judge, Bilaspur. 4. Petitioner submits that he is the co-owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 784/2 Rakba 0.76 acre situate at village Tifra, district Bilaspur, and the defendant is the tenant of the said property. The plaintiff filed a civil suit for vacant possession, arrears of rent and also for damages which was partly allowed and a decree for arrears of rent has been granted amounting to Rs. 2175/-. Plaintiffs preferred a civil appeal stating that the defendant is lessee and the land has been given to the defendant on rent of Rs. 175/- per month for three years as per lease agreement, but since the period of agreement is over, he may be given the vacant possession of the same along with arrears of rent. After hearing the parties, learned lower appellate Court allowed the 3 appeal vide judgment and decree dated 31.12.2005 and directed defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs and till then Rs. 1000/- per month be given to the plaintiffs. Petitioner further submits that against the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2005 the defendant preferred a second appeal bearing No. 16/2006 and vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.2007 the same has been dismissed and judgment of the first appellate court has been affirmed and the defendant has been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property within a period of six months from that day. He submits that by decree dated 31-12-2005, the District Court, Bilaspur, fully allowed his claim and accordingly, he is entitled to all the reliefs sought in the plaint. He further submits that as per the order of the District Court, the respondent was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- per month till the vacant possession is handed over to the plaintiff, on account of his illegal possession over the land, and therefore he is entitled to recover the same, but the decree has not been executed till date. He submits that respondent No. 1 has not deposited any amount in the Executing Court in compliance with the decree; rather, only an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month has been paid as penalty, which is not in accordance with law and does not constitute compliance with the order of the District Court as well as learned trial Court. According to the petitioner, the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to interpret or construe the decree of the District Court as well as the trial Court in a manner contrary to its express terms. Petitioner submits that the mandatory provisions under Order XXIV Rule 2 of the CPC have not 4 been complied with. According to the petitioner, no stay order has been passed by the this Court against the execution of the decretal amount, and that even the execution of the decretal sum has not been carried out. Petitioner submits that in view of the mandatory nature of Order XXIV Rule 2 of the CPC, he was entitled not only to raise objections but also to move an application for recovery of the decretal amount. However, this mandatory provision has not been followed. He submits that under Order XXI Rule 11(1) of the CPC, he was entitled to make an oral request, which the Executing Court has wrongly refused to entertain. He submits that as per the order of the this Court dated 23- 02-2006 passed in Second Appeal No. 16/2006, the respondent was required to furnish a security bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) but the mandatory provisions of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act have not been complied with in execution of the said bond. The bond executed before the Executing Court cannot be termed a valid bond, as execution of such a bond requires at least two witnesses, which are absent in the present bond. He further submits that under the mandatory provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, execution of a bond must be carried out on proper stamp duty but the same has not been done in the present case. He submits that the execution must strictly be in conformity with the decree as passed, but the respondents, for their own convenience, have interpreted the decree contrary to law and have acted in violation of legal provisions. 5. Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has already furnished the security bond on 09.03.2006 before the Executing 5 Court and the same was found in order and was accepted by the Executing Court on that day. He submits that the order dated 09.03.2006 passed by the Executing Court has already been held by this Court to be the order in compliance of the order dated 23.02.2006 and therefore, the instant writ writ petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that the Executing Court has rightly turned down the objection filed by the petitioner and the oral plea so taken by him. He submits that even otherwise the respondent is complying with the decree as well as the interim order passed by this Court. 6. Having heard the parties and perused the record it is apparent that the petitioner has filed this petition for arrears of rent as well as recovery of damages as ordered by the two courts below. It is not a case where this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for executing the orders of two Courts below and also for recovery of arrears he can avail the remedy as available to him under the law. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief sought for by him in this petition. However, as a decree has been passed, this Court cannot go behind the same. The second appeal filed by the defendant has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 7.8.2007 and the order passed by the first appellate Court has been confirmed and the respondent herein has also been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land within a period of six months from that day ,therefore, nothing remains for adjudication in this petition. 6 7. Since the second appeal filed by the respondent herein before this Court has already been decided and the decree of the lower appellate Court has been confirmed, the petitioner cannot get any relief by filing this petition. Therefore, this petition has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such. No cost. 8. Needless to mention here that the petition is at liberty to avail the remedy available to under the law, if his grievance still subsists. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi