Sodhu Ram (Now Dead) Through Legal Representative Nill v. Narayan Prasad

4 - Rajni Bai D/o Late Shri Dwarpal Dewangan W/o Kaushal Prasad Dewangan Aged About 50 Years R/o Vill- Choriya Tah- Champa Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Smt Radha Bai D/o Late Shri Sodhu Ram W/o Late Shri Vishram Dewanga Aged About 73 Years R/o Baigapara Behind Police Station Sakti Tah, Sakti Now Dist- Sakti (C.G.) 6 - Shakun Bai D/o Late Shri Sodhu Ram W/o Shri Domal Prasad Dewangan Aged About 70 Years R/o Vill- Suretha Tah- And Dist- Mungeli (C.G.) 7 - Savitri Bai D/o Late Shri Sodhu Ram W/o Shri Beniram Dewangan Aged About 68 Years R/o Vill- Baloda Near Halwai Chowk Baloda Tah- Baloda Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (The Name Of The Petitioner And Respondent Completely Are Properly Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order There Fore It Has Been Mentioned As Per The Original Records ) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 17/07/2026

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated

24.06.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, in Execution Case No. 05/2012, whereby the objection raised by the judgment-debtor 3 regarding the maintainability of the execution proceedings has been rejected, and a possession warrant has been issued.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the predecessor-in-interest, namely Sodhu Ram, was the defendant No. 1 in the Civil Suit filed by the respondent No. 1 and the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The suit was for a permanent injunction, a mandatory injunction for the removal of the construction of the defendants and in the alternative, vacant possession of the suit property. The suit property is a house and open area shown in the plaint map annexed to the plaint and earmarked by ABCDEF. He further submits that the suit property of ABCDEF is situated over the Abadi land, but it was not in existence on the spot. Some part of the land of the defendants comes under the said suit property on the demarcation carried out by the revenue authorities. The property of the defendants is not the subject property in the suit, and therefore the decree could not be effectively executed in its terms. Referring to the panchnamas and sketch map of the subject property annexed as Annexure P/9 and P/10, with the petition, he would submit that there is no proper measurement and no proper four corners described by the plaintiffs in their plaint and an erroneous sketch map was shown in the plaint map. In the absence of any proper identification of the subject land, the decree could not be executed. The learned Executing Court should have ascertained the identification of the subject land first

4. 4 and then only proceed with the execution if the subject land is to be found on the spot. Force measure while executing the decree against the defendants with respect to delivery of possession of their property amounts to depriving them of their property and the erroneous execution of the decree. Therefore, before issuing the possession warrant, the learned Executing Court should have asked for proper determination of the existence of the subject land as per the plaint map and then only proceeded with the execution. Therefore, the impugned order is erroneous and liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed to the petition. The petitioner could not dispute the fact that the decree for possession of the suit property, as shown in the plaint map, has been passed against the defendants vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2001 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 72-A/1996. The first Appeal No. 5-A/2004 has also been dismissed by the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.08.2004, and then the Second Appeal No. 446/2004 has also been dismissed by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2007, and thus the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2001 attains its finality. The plaintiff’s case before the learned trial court was that the subject property of the plaint map ABCDEF part is the Abadi land which was purchased by all three brothers in the year 1948 and a memorandum of 5 partition was executed on 16.03.1954. Accordingly, the parties are in possession of their respective share of the property. The subject house was abundant since 2024-2025 years back and then the defendant No. 1 tried to possess the same, and a dispute arose between the parties, and a suit has been filed. The defence of the defendants was that the plaint map annexed by the plaintiff is incorrect as the 0.02 acres of land of Khasra Nos. 839 and 840 of the defendants also come under the ABCDEF part of the map annexed to the plaint, and the said land belongs to the defendant. It was the case of the defendant before the learned trial Court that their part of the land was also included in the suit land, and an incorrect map had been presented by the plaintiff in the suit.

5. The learned trial Court, after considering the pleadings of the respective parties, has framed 13 issues and after providing opportunity to lead evidence with respect to their pleadings and after conclusion of the trial, decided the suit by allowing the claim of the plaintiffs for delivery of possession of the subject property. Despite the clear defence of the defendants, the learned trial Court considered that the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of ABCDEF part of the property shown in the plaint map. The said judgment and decree have been upheld up to the High Court.

6. In the case of “Brakewel Automotive Components (India) (P) Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan”, 2017 (5) SCC 371, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- 6 “20. It is no longer res integra that an executing court can neither travel behind the decree nor sit in appeal over the same or pass any order jeopardising the rights of the parties thereunder. It is only in the limited cases where the decree is by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction or is a nullity that the same is rendered non est and is thus unexecutable. An erroneous decree cannot be equalled with one which is a nullity. There are no intervening developments as well to render the decree unexecutable.

21. As it is, Section 47 of the Code mandates determination by an executing court, questions arising between the parties or their representatives relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and does not contemplate any adjudication beyond the same. A decree of court of law being sacrosanct in nature, the execution thereof ought not to be thwarted on mere asking and on untenable and purported grounds having no bearing on the validity or the executability thereof.

22. Judicial precedents to the effect that the purview of scrutiny under Section 47 of the Code qua a decree is limited to objections to its executability on the ground of jurisdictional infirmity or voidness are plethoric. This Court, amongst others in _Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman_ in essence enunciated that only a decree which is a nullity can be the subject- matter of objection under Section 47 of the Code and not one which is erroneous either in law or on facts. The following extract from this decision seems apt: (SCC pp. 672-73, paras 6-7)“ ⁵ “6. A court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree: between the parties or their representatives it must take the decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. Until it is set aside by an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous is still binding between the parties.

7. When a decree which is a nullity, for instance, where it is passed without bringing the 7 legal representative on the record of a person who was dead at the date of the decree, or against a ruling prince without a certificate, is sought to be executed an objection in that behalf may be raised in a proceeding for execution. Again, when the decree is made by a court which has no inherent jurisdiction to make it, objection as to its validity may be raised in an execution proceeding if the objection appears on the face of the record: where the objection as to the jurisdiction of the court to pass the decree does not appear on the face of the record and requires examination of the questions raised and decided at the trial or which could have been but have not been raised, the executing court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an objection as to the validity of the decree even on the ground of absence of jurisdiction.”

7. When the judgment and decree have been passed by the learned trial Court and upheld up to the High Court with respect to the delivery of possession of ABCDEF part shown in the plaint map, the decree is required to be executed in its terms for delivery of possession of the property shown in the plaint map. The petitioners tried to demonstrate from the document Annexure P/10 that ABCDEF part of the subject property is not in existence in its four corners on the spot, and therefore, the decree could not be executed, but considering the report submitted by the Revenue Authorities, the learned Executing Court passed an order on

20.04.2026 that before proceeding further, the subject property should be ascertained first and then only proceed for execution. The suit was filed in the year 1999, and the report was submitted by the Revenue Authorities in the year 2026. In the long gap of 27 8 years, the four corners of the subject land might have some discrepancy, but the decree is still in force for possession of the subject property of ABCDEF part of the plaint map.

8. It is well settled that an executing Court is bound to execute the decree as it stands and cannot travel beyond its terms or reopen issues which have already attained finality in the original proceedings. The executing Court is competent to interpret the decree only to the extent necessary for its implementation, but it cannot question its correctness, modify its scope or adjudicate afresh upon matters that were or could have been decided by the trial Court. In the present case, the plea now raised by the petitioners that the plaint map is incorrect, that the suit property is not identifiable on the spot, or that part of their land has been wrongly included in the ABCDEF portion of the map, was not a new issue arising during execution. The record reveals that the defendants had specifically taken the same defence before the trial Court, contending that the plaint map incorrectly included a portion of their land comprised in Khasra Nos. 839 and 840. The said objection was considered during the trial, and despite such defence, the suit for possession of the ABCDEF portion shown in the plaint map was decreed. The decree has thereafter been affirmed in the first appeal as well as the second appeal and has thus attained finality. Once the identity of the suit property, as described in the decree read with the plaint map, has been finally adjudicated, the same issue cannot be permitted to be reagitated 9 under the guise of an objection in execution. The executing Court has rightly confined itself to implementing the decree and, after obtaining the report of the Revenue Authorities for facilitating execution, rejected the objection. Merely because, after a lapse of several years, some variation is alleged on the spot regarding the physical features or boundaries of the property, the decree does not become inexecutable, particularly when its identity has already been conclusively determined by the competent civil court.

9. From the overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents annexed with the petition, I do not find any palpable infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court, which warrants interference in the present writ petition.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok