Dharmendra Kumar v. Smt. Meena and others). The Additional District Judge vide order dated
Case Details
Acts & Sections
1. Heard Md. Muzzamil I. Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Jigyasa Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. Brief facts of the case are that execution proceeding was initiated at the instance of decree holder, which has registered as Execution Case No.49 of 2006. Petitioner's father Noor Mohammed had challenged the auction by filing Misc. Case No.12 of 2010 under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. in Execution Case No.49 of 2006 pending before Additional District Judge-II, Bulandshahr. After the death of petitioner's father the aforementioned Misc. Case No.12 of 2010 was dismissed in default on 20.11.2014. Against the order dated
20.11.2014, restoration application was filed which is stated to be pending for consideration. In pursuance of the auction taken place in the proceeding in favour of respondent no.1 an application was filed on behalf of respondent no.1 for getting possession over the auctioned property which was registered as Misc. Case No.195 of 2020 Dharmendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Meena and others). The Additional District Judge vide order dated 25.07.2024 directed the Ameen to take possession and hand over to respondent No.1. On behalf of petitioner an objection under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rule 101 C.P.C. was filed in Misc. Case No.195 of 2020, which was registered as Misc. Case No.188 of 2024. In the Misc. Case No.188 of 2024 objections were filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Additional District Judge Court no.14 Bulandshahr vide order dated 23.07.2025 rejected the objection of petitioner in Misc. Case 2 A227 No. 8917 of 2025 No.188 of 2024 hence this petition for the following relief: (i). Set aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act)/Additional District Judge, Court No.14 Bulandshahr rejecting application under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. in R.C. Execution Case as well as entire illegal recovery of judgment debtor Moinuddin from the property of petitioner, although petitioner has no concern with the judgment debtor Moinuddin or his legal heirs, as is manifestly erroneous and unsustainable in law."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that entire execution proceeding of Execution Case No.49 of 2006 is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. He further submitted that decree holder (Chandra Prakash Gupta) deliberately and falsely mentioned the petitioner's property (House No.455 now 572/1) as that of the judgment debtor Moinuddin. He further submitted that auction conducted on 1.2.2010 was without jurisdiction as the auction property does not belong judgment debtor but to the petiotner and his predecessor in interest, namely Noor Mohd, who purchased it through a registered sale deed dated 17.12.1993 from the lawful owner, respondent No.2 Smt. Asgari Begum. He further submitted that learned court below has committed manifest error of law in rejecting the objection under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rule 101 C.P.C. filed by petitioner in Misc. Case No.188 of 2024. He submitted that impugned proceedings are in clear violation of principle of natural justice as petitioner was not given fair opportunity to present his case. He further submitted that original objections filed by petitioner's father Noor Mohd were dismissed in default but restoration application is still pending, as such execution proceeding cannot proceed. He further submitted that identity of the property has been fraudulently manipulated as such entire execution proceeding is vitiated by error of law. He submitted that petitioner has been in continuous possession of the disputed property, which forms part of the property purchased by his father and was subsequently devolved upon him by registered will deed. He further submitted that ex parte order dated 6.9.2005 passed in Writ No. 56 of 1985 was obtained by suppression of material facts as such the same cannot be relied upon. He submitted that entire proceeding are illegal, 3 A227 No. 8917 of 2025 as such impugned order dated 23.07.2025 should be set aside and petitioner's objection under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. in the Execution Case should be considered afresh.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that objection under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. filed by petitioner has been rightly rejected under the impugned order considering the fact that objection to the same effect filed by petitioner's father was dismissed by the Execution Court. She submitted that even objection filed by respondent No.2-Smt. Asgari Begum was also rejected by execution court as such petitioner's objection cannot be entertained. She submitted that instant petiton should be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that objection under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Case No.188 of 2024 has been rejected by Execution Court vide order dated 23.07.2025.
7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, findings of fact recorded by Execution Court under the impugned order will be relevant which is as under:- न्यायालयः िवशेष न्यायाधीश (आवश्यक वस्तु अिधिनयम)/ अपर िजला न्यायाधीश, न्याय क्ष संख्या-14, बुलन्दशहर उपिस्थत धीरें्श कु मार -II (एच.जे.एस.) आई.डी. नंबर UP6145 ्ऺकीणर् िसिवल वाद संख्या-188/2024 CNR No. UPBU010080662024 खलील अहमद उ्ा करीब कस्बा व परगना व तहसील िशकारपुर िजला बुलन्दशहर.....अपीलकतार् बनाम 1. 1. धमरॏन््श कु मार पु्ऴ श्यामिबहारी िनवासी मौहल्ला मुफ्तीवाड़ा, कस्बा वा परगना वा तहसील- िशकारपुर, िजला-बुलन्दशहर। 2. 1. ्शीमती. अशगरी बेगम पत्नी स्वगर्य रहमतुल्ला, िनवासी मौहल्ला मुफ्तीवाड़ा, कस्बा या परगना या तहसील-िशकारपुर, िजला-बुलंदशहर A227 No. 8917 of 2025 4 िनणर्य ..........................................................................................................................................
3. उभयप्षों के िव्षान अिधव्वागण के तकर् को सुना तथा तलबशुदा प्ऴावली एवं ्ऺकीणर् िसिवल की प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध साष्य / सबूतों का सम्यक् रूप से अवलोकन िकया। 4. प्ऴावली का अवलोकन करने से स्प्ि है िक ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺकरण में लघुबाद इजराय संख्या -49/2006 के माध्यम से िविवद्षस्त संपि्त की कु कर् करने के आदेश पािरत िकये गये। ्ऺस्तुत आपि्त के माध्यम से आपि्तकतार् का मुख्य रूप से यह कथन है िक उसने ्ऺश्नगत संपि्त जो िक एक खाली प्लॉट था, उसका बैनामा आपि्तकतार् के िपता नूर मौहम्मद ने िवप्षी संख्या-2 असगरी बेगम से 90 वगर्गज का िदनांक-17.12.1993 को मु. 22 हजार रूपये में करा िलया था तथा शेष भाग पर ्शीमती असगरी बेगम स्वयं मािलक व कािबज रही तथा ्ऺाथर् के िपता ने स्वयं के ्षारा खरीदी गयी आराजी पर मकान का िनमार्ण करा िलया। ्ऺश््शगत संपि्त आपि्तकतार् के िपता नूर मौहम्मद से एक पंजीकृ त वसीयत िदनांक-17.12.1998 के माध्यम से आपि्तकतार् को दे दी। िवप्षी चं्श्ऺकाश गुप्ता ने मोईनु्दीन िखलाफ हजार् इस्तेमाली मु. 1,64,216/- रूपये बकाये की वसूली हेतु एक इजराय सं.-49/2006 योिजत की। उ्व इंजराय में मोईनु्दीन (जे.िड.) की माता ्शीमती असगरी के मकान को िदनांक 01.02.2010 को मौके पर ही नीलामी की कायर्वाही अमल में लायी गयी, लेिकन ्ऴुिटवश आपि्तकतार् के मकान को भी असगरी का मकान समझकर नीलामी की कायर्वाही गलत रूप से कर दी गयी, जबिक ्ऺाथर् के उ्व मकान को मोईनु्दीन की संपि्त मानते हुए जो नीलामी की कायर्वाही की थी, वह अपने आप में गलत व शून्य थी। आपि्तकतार् के ्षारा अपनी आपि्त के समथर्न में िवप्षी संख्या 2 असगरी बेगम के ्षारा आपि्तकतार् के िपता खलील अहमद के प्ष में िनष्पािदत पंजीकृ त िव्वयप्ऴ की ्ऺमािणत ्ऺित ्ऺस्तुत की तथा साथ ही पंजीकृ त वसीयतनामा जो आपि्तकतार् के प्ष में नूर मौहम्मद ्षारा िनष्पािदत िकया गया है, उसकी ्ऺित भी ्ऺस्तुत की गयी । इसके अितिर्व नीलामी गृहकर िनधार्रण सूची 1989-90, 1993-94 भी प्ऴावली पर दािखल की गयी है। ्ऺाथर् / आपि्तकतार् ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत िकये गये िकसी भी दस्तावेज से यह तथ्य स्थािपत नहीं है िक ्ऺश्नगत कु कर्शुदा संपि्त इसी संपि्त का भाग है। इसके अितिरक यह भी उल्लेख करना आवश्यक होगा िक इसके पूवर् वह इसके संबंध में असगरी की ओर से चं्श्ऺकाश गुप्ता के िवरू्ध दािखल आपि्त िविवध वाद संख्या-585/2007 आदेश िदनांिकत-24.01.2009 के माध्यम से िनरस्त िकया जा चुका है। इसके अलावा िवप्षी संख्या-2 असगरी का पु्ऴ असगर अली की ओर से चं्श्ऺकाश के िवरू्ध उ्व इजराज के संबंध में दािखल आपि्त ्ऺकीणर् वाद संख्या-27/2009 भी आदेश िदनांिकत 30.01.2010 के माध्यम से िनरस्त िकया जा चुका है। ्ऺकीणर् वाद सं-27/2013 के िवरू्ध पुनिवलोकन ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ सं.-536/2015 भी आदेश िदनांिकत-20.05.2019 के माध्यम से िनरस्त िकया जा चुका है। इसके अितिर्व उ्व कु कर् की कायर्वाही के संबंध में अस्थायी ्िादेश हेतु िसिवल िविवध वाद संख्या-498/2019, खलील अहमद बनाम धमॏल्श में आपि्तकतार् की ओर से ्ऺस्तुत िकये गये ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ को 22.01.2020 के माध्यम से पूवर् में िनरस्त िकया जा चुका है। ऐसी दशा में ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺकीणर् के संबंध में आपि्तकतार् खलील अहमद की ओर से ्ऺस्तुत की गयी आपि्त बलहीन होने के कारण खािरज होने योग्य है।। आदेश 5. ्ऺाथर्/आपि्तकतार् की ओर से ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺकीणर् िसिवल संख्या-188 सन् 2024, खलील अहमद खान बनाम धमॏल्श कु मार आिद िनरस्त की जाती है। 6. इस आदेश की एक ्ऺित तलबशुदा अिभलेख के साथ िव्षान िवचारण न्यायालय को अिवलम्ब 5 A227 No. 8917 of 2025 ्ऺेिषत की जाये। 7. ्ऺकीणर् िसिवल वाद की प्ऴावली िनयमानुसार दािखल दफ्तर हो। िदनांक-23.07.2025 (धीरें्श कु मार पीय) िवशेष न्यायाधीश (ई.सी एक्ट)/ अपर िजला न्यायाधीश, कोटर् संख्या-14, बुलन्दशहर। जे.ओ. कोड सं.-6145
8. The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by the Execution Court while deciding the Misc. Case No.188 of 2024 as quoted above demonstrate that the objection filed on behalf of petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. is total abuse of process of law as the objection filed by petitioner's father was dismissed in default and restoration application is stated to be pending before the court concerned. The impugned order further demonstrate that respondent No.2 Smt. Asgari Begum has also filed objection against the decree holder (Chandra Prakash Gupta) which was rejected vide order dated 24.12.2009, 30.01.2010 and 20.05.2019, as such filing of objection under Order 21 Rule 97 at the instance of the petitioner after rejection of the objection of the petitioners' father is total abuse of the process of law.
9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as finding recorded by execution Court there is no scope for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed the execution proceeding.
10. The instant petition is dismissed accordingly. August 18, 2025 PS*/Vandana (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1. Heard Md. Muzzamil I. Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Jigyasa Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. Brief facts of the case are that execution proceeding was initiated at the instance of decree holder, which has registered as Execution Case No.49 of 2006. Petitioner's father Noor Mohammed had challenged the auction by filing Misc. Case No.12 of 2010 under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. in Execution Case No.49 of 2006 pending before Additional District Judge-II, Bulandshahr. After the death of petitioner's father the aforementioned Misc. Case No.12 of 2010 was dismissed in default on 20.11.2014. Against the order dated
20.11.2014, restoration application was filed which is stated to be pending for consideration. In pursuance of the auction taken place in the proceeding in favour of respondent no.1 an application was filed on behalf of respondent no.1 for getting possession over the auctioned property which was registered as Misc. Case No.195 of 2020 Dharmendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Meena and others). The Additional District Judge vide order dated 25.07.2024 directed the Ameen to take possession and hand over to respondent No.1. On behalf of petitioner an objection under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rule 101 C.P.C. was filed in Misc. Case No.195 of 2020, which was registered as Misc. Case No.188 of 2024. In the Misc. Case No.188 of 2024 objections were filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Additional District Judge Court no.14 Bulandshahr vide order dated 23.07.2025 rejected the objection of petitioner in Misc. Case 2 A227 No. 8917 of 2025 No.188 of 2024 hence this petition for the following relief: (i). Set aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act)/Additional District Judge, Court No.14 Bulandshahr rejecting application under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. in R.C. Execution Case as well as entire illegal recovery of judgment debtor Moinuddin from the property of petitioner, although petitioner has no concern with the judgment debtor Moinuddin or his legal heirs, as is manifestly erroneous and unsustainable in law."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that entire execution proceeding of Execution Case No.49 of 2006 is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. He further submitted that decree holder (Chandra Prakash Gupta) deliberately and falsely mentioned the petitioner's property (House No.455 now 572/1) as that of the judgment debtor Moinuddin. He further submitted that auction conducted on 1.2.2010 was without jurisdiction as the auction property does not belong judgment debtor but to the petiotner and his predecessor in interest, namely Noor Mohd, who purchased it through a registered sale deed dated 17.12.1993 from the lawful owner, respondent No.2 Smt. Asgari Begum. He further submitted that learned court below has committed manifest error of law in rejecting the objection under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rule 101 C.P.C. filed by petitioner in Misc. Case No.188 of 2024. He submitted that impugned proceedings are in clear violation of principle of natural justice as petitioner was not given fair opportunity to present his case. He further submitted that original objections filed by petitioner's father Noor Mohd were dismissed in default but restoration application is still pending, as such execution proceeding cannot proceed. He further submitted that identity of the property has been fraudulently manipulated as such entire execution proceeding is vitiated by error of law. He submitted that petitioner has been in continuous possession of the disputed property, which forms part of the property purchased by his father and was subsequently devolved upon him by registered will deed. He further submitted that ex parte order dated 6.9.2005 passed in Writ No. 56 of 1985 was obtained by suppression of material facts as such the same cannot be relied upon. He submitted that entire proceeding are illegal, 3 A227 No. 8917 of 2025 as such impugned order dated 23.07.2025 should be set aside and petitioner's objection under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. in the Execution Case should be considered afresh.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that objection under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. filed by petitioner has been rightly rejected under the impugned order considering the fact that objection to the same effect filed by petitioner's father was dismissed by the Execution Court. She submitted that even objection filed by respondent No.2-Smt. Asgari Begum was also rejected by execution court as such petitioner's objection cannot be entertained. She submitted that instant petiton should be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that objection under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Case No.188 of 2024 has been rejected by Execution Court vide order dated 23.07.2025.
7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, findings of fact recorded by Execution Court under the impugned order will be relevant which is as under:- न्यायालयः िवशेष न्यायाधीश (आवश्यक वस्तु अिधिनयम)/ अपर िजला न्यायाधीश, न्याय क्ष संख्या-14, बुलन्दशहर उपिस्थत धीरें्श कु मार -II (एच.जे.एस.) आई.डी. नंबर UP6145 ्ऺकीणर् िसिवल वाद संख्या-188/2024 CNR No. UPBU010080662024 खलील अहमद उ्ा करीब कस्बा व परगना व तहसील िशकारपुर िजला बुलन्दशहर.....अपीलकतार् बनाम 1. 1. धमरॏन््श कु मार पु्ऴ श्यामिबहारी िनवासी मौहल्ला मुफ्तीवाड़ा, कस्बा वा परगना वा तहसील- िशकारपुर, िजला-बुलन्दशहर। 2. 1. ्शीमती. अशगरी बेगम पत्नी स्वगर्य रहमतुल्ला, िनवासी मौहल्ला मुफ्तीवाड़ा, कस्बा या परगना या तहसील-िशकारपुर, िजला-बुलंदशहर A227 No. 8917 of 2025 4 िनणर्य ..........................................................................................................................................
3. उभयप्षों के िव्षान अिधव्वागण के तकर् को सुना तथा तलबशुदा प्ऴावली एवं ्ऺकीणर् िसिवल की प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध साष्य / सबूतों का सम्यक् रूप से अवलोकन िकया। 4. प्ऴावली का अवलोकन करने से स्प्ि है िक ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺकरण में लघुबाद इजराय संख्या -49/2006 के माध्यम से िविवद्षस्त संपि्त की कु कर् करने के आदेश पािरत िकये गये। ्ऺस्तुत आपि्त के माध्यम से आपि्तकतार् का मुख्य रूप से यह कथन है िक उसने ्ऺश्नगत संपि्त जो िक एक खाली प्लॉट था, उसका बैनामा आपि्तकतार् के िपता नूर मौहम्मद ने िवप्षी संख्या-2 असगरी बेगम से 90 वगर्गज का िदनांक-17.12.1993 को मु. 22 हजार रूपये में करा िलया था तथा शेष भाग पर ्शीमती असगरी बेगम स्वयं मािलक व कािबज रही तथा ्ऺाथर् के िपता ने स्वयं के ्षारा खरीदी गयी आराजी पर मकान का िनमार्ण करा िलया। ्ऺश््शगत संपि्त आपि्तकतार् के िपता नूर मौहम्मद से एक पंजीकृ त वसीयत िदनांक-17.12.1998 के माध्यम से आपि्तकतार् को दे दी। िवप्षी चं्श्ऺकाश गुप्ता ने मोईनु्दीन िखलाफ हजार् इस्तेमाली मु. 1,64,216/- रूपये बकाये की वसूली हेतु एक इजराय सं.-49/2006 योिजत की। उ्व इंजराय में मोईनु्दीन (जे.िड.) की माता ्शीमती असगरी के मकान को िदनांक 01.02.2010 को मौके पर ही नीलामी की कायर्वाही अमल में लायी गयी, लेिकन ्ऴुिटवश आपि्तकतार् के मकान को भी असगरी का मकान समझकर नीलामी की कायर्वाही गलत रूप से कर दी गयी, जबिक ्ऺाथर् के उ्व मकान को मोईनु्दीन की संपि्त मानते हुए जो नीलामी की कायर्वाही की थी, वह अपने आप में गलत व शून्य थी। आपि्तकतार् के ्षारा अपनी आपि्त के समथर्न में िवप्षी संख्या 2 असगरी बेगम के ्षारा आपि्तकतार् के िपता खलील अहमद के प्ष में िनष्पािदत पंजीकृ त िव्वयप्ऴ की ्ऺमािणत ्ऺित ्ऺस्तुत की तथा साथ ही पंजीकृ त वसीयतनामा जो आपि्तकतार् के प्ष में नूर मौहम्मद ्षारा िनष्पािदत िकया गया है, उसकी ्ऺित भी ्ऺस्तुत की गयी । इसके अितिर्व नीलामी गृहकर िनधार्रण सूची 1989-90, 1993-94 भी प्ऴावली पर दािखल की गयी है। ्ऺाथर् / आपि्तकतार् ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत िकये गये िकसी भी दस्तावेज से यह तथ्य स्थािपत नहीं है िक ्ऺश्नगत कु कर्शुदा संपि्त इसी संपि्त का भाग है। इसके अितिरक यह भी उल्लेख करना आवश्यक होगा िक इसके पूवर् वह इसके संबंध में असगरी की ओर से चं्श्ऺकाश गुप्ता के िवरू्ध दािखल आपि्त िविवध वाद संख्या-585/2007 आदेश िदनांिकत-24.01.2009 के माध्यम से िनरस्त िकया जा चुका है। इसके अलावा िवप्षी संख्या-2 असगरी का पु्ऴ असगर अली की ओर से चं्श्ऺकाश के िवरू्ध उ्व इजराज के संबंध में दािखल आपि्त ्ऺकीणर् वाद संख्या-27/2009 भी आदेश िदनांिकत 30.01.2010 के माध्यम से िनरस्त िकया जा चुका है। ्ऺकीणर् वाद सं-27/2013 के िवरू्ध पुनिवलोकन ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ सं.-536/2015 भी आदेश िदनांिकत-20.05.2019 के माध्यम से िनरस्त िकया जा चुका है। इसके अितिर्व उ्व कु कर् की कायर्वाही के संबंध में अस्थायी ्िादेश हेतु िसिवल िविवध वाद संख्या-498/2019, खलील अहमद बनाम धमॏल्श में आपि्तकतार् की ओर से ्ऺस्तुत िकये गये ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ को 22.01.2020 के माध्यम से पूवर् में िनरस्त िकया जा चुका है। ऐसी दशा में ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺकीणर् के संबंध में आपि्तकतार् खलील अहमद की ओर से ्ऺस्तुत की गयी आपि्त बलहीन होने के कारण खािरज होने योग्य है।। आदेश 5. ्ऺाथर्/आपि्तकतार् की ओर से ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺकीणर् िसिवल संख्या-188 सन् 2024, खलील अहमद खान बनाम धमॏल्श कु मार आिद िनरस्त की जाती है। 6. इस आदेश की एक ्ऺित तलबशुदा अिभलेख के साथ िव्षान िवचारण न्यायालय को अिवलम्ब 5 A227 No. 8917 of 2025 ्ऺेिषत की जाये। 7. ्ऺकीणर् िसिवल वाद की प्ऴावली िनयमानुसार दािखल दफ्तर हो। िदनांक-23.07.2025 (धीरें्श कु मार पीय) िवशेष न्यायाधीश (ई.सी एक्ट)/ अपर िजला न्यायाधीश, कोटर् संख्या-14, बुलन्दशहर। जे.ओ. कोड सं.-6145
8. The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by the Execution Court while deciding the Misc. Case No.188 of 2024 as quoted above demonstrate that the objection filed on behalf of petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. is total abuse of process of law as the objection filed by petitioner's father was dismissed in default and restoration application is stated to be pending before the court concerned. The impugned order further demonstrate that respondent No.2 Smt. Asgari Begum has also filed objection against the decree holder (Chandra Prakash Gupta) which was rejected vide order dated 24.12.2009, 30.01.2010 and 20.05.2019, as such filing of objection under Order 21 Rule 97 at the instance of the petitioner after rejection of the objection of the petitioners' father is total abuse of the process of law.
9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as finding recorded by execution Court there is no scope for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed the execution proceeding.
10. The instant petition is dismissed accordingly. August 18, 2025 PS*/Vandana (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad