Kartik Chandra Chatterjee v. Manoj Kumar Singh
Case at a glance
- Bench
- GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Outcome
Allowed
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XXII r. 4
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Opp. Party : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate : Oral Order 03/ Dated :20.10.2022 Instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 11.01.2022 passed in I.A. No.02 of 2021 (Execution Case No.21 of 2014) filed by the judgment debtor under Order XXII Rule 4 of C.P.C. which was allowed for substituting the name of Indu Singh as judgment debtor in place of Shyam Sharan Singh. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is the decree holder and the execution case was filed for executing the decree passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No.76 of 2001 by the Additional Civil Judge, Dhanbad. It is submitted that during the pendency of execution case, judgment debtor died and in his place, his son had been already substituted in the case. In order to delay the execution proceeding, the substituted judgment debtor filed a petition to implead the married daughter of original judgment debtor which has been allowed by the learned Court below.
The challenge to the order is two folds. Firstly, the provision of Order XXII Rule 4 does not apply in case of execution proceeding in view of Order XXII Rule 12 and secondly in the definition of tenant given under Section 2(d) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, married daughter of the tenant is not included. From the bare perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that it is not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned Court below has misdirected itself to apply Order XXII Rule 4 C.P.C. in the execution proceeding in a case arising out of eviction suit. Section 12 of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, the interest of tenant, in any premises is determined for any reason, whatsoever, and any order is made by the Court under this Act, for the recovery of possession of such premises, the order shall be binding on all persons who may be in occupation of the premises and the vacant possession thereof shall be given to the landlord by evicting all such persons therefrom.
Operative part
In view of the above provision the impugned order for substitution was clearly unwarranted. The impugned order is set aside and the learned Court below is directed to dispose of the execution proceeding within a period of three months. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Anit (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXII r. 4.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.