Court No. - 30
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2731 of 2019 Petitioner :- Chrongi Lal And 02 Others Respondent :- Om Prakash And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kiran Gupta,Dharmendra Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Awadhesh Kumar Mishra,Rahul Sahai
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Two supplementary affidavits filed today are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and perused the record.
Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order 7.12.2018 passed by the Revisional Court i.e. 2nd Additional District Judge, Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act Badaun in Revision No. 53 of 2016 (Om Prakash and other vs. Chirongi Lal and another) in Misc. Case No. 82 of 2013 arising out of execution case no. 14 of 1995.
The objections filed by the defendants (respondents herein) was rejected. The revisional Court allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Executing Court for decision afresh. Objections were rejected on the ground that the property regarding which execution case was filed is the same property, which has been purchased by the defendants and therefore, since they are subsequent purchasers, their objections are liable to be rejected. The Executing Court passed the order taking into account the report submitted by the Tehsildar, Dataganj. The revisional Court allowed the revision on the ground that the property is not identifiable and that who was the original owner from whom contesting respondents have purchased the property who filed the objection is not clear. It was also noticed that the report of the Tehsildar was in regard to the property mentioned in column no. 1 whereas the claim of the defendants is in regard to the property mentioned in column no. 4, which is property situated at a different place. The claim of the decree holder is that it is the same property. By noticing these facts matter has been remanded to the Executing Court for decision afresh.
It is the settled law that unless strong reasons exist, normally there should be no interference in the remand order, therefore, since the matter has been remanded and no serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
However, present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Execution Court to decide the objections afresh in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months by fixing short dates from the date of production of certified copy of this order and no unnecessary adjournments shall be granted to either of the parties.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Abhishek