Court No. - 30
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1848 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shri Gopal @ Ram Gopal And Anr. Respondent :- District Judge, Jalaun And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Chandra Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Bind Counsel for Respondent :- Tushar Kant
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.Ċ. Srivastava and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Tushar Kant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
Present petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.1.2018 and 9.10.2017 passed by the respondents no. 1 and 2 respectively.
The suit of the plaintiff (respondents herein) was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal filed against the same was allowed by the lower appellate Court. Subsequently execution case no. 17 of 1995 was filed by the plaintiffs- respondents for execution. The dispute was raised regarding boundaries of the suit property in execution proceedings that they do not match with the boundaries as shown in the execution application. The application has been rejected by the executing court and thereafter civil revision was also rejected. The application was rejected on the ground that the execution is proceeding regarding the property as described in the decree and therefore, the application is baseless.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the boundaries as shown in the execution application do not match with the boundaries shown in the decree and from Amin's report it is reflected that the boundaries of the disputed property are not correct. Under such circumstances, submission is that without ascertaining the boundaries the execution cannot proceed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
On perusal of the record, I find that the ground taken is that the execution is proceeding for the suit property as shown in the plaint and the boundaries that are shown in the decree and, therefore, there is no illegality. Much emphasis was given by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Amin's report. I have perused the Amin's report and perusal of the same also indicates that the plaint map was shown by the plaintiff and according to which the boundaries are matching and decree is being executed only with regard to the property having the same boundaries. Further, on perusal of the record I find that against the judgement of the first appellate court, the petitioner herein had approached this Court by filing Civil Revision Defective No. 195 of 2002 (Midar & others vs. Ram Prakash) along with delay condonation application. The delay condonation application was dismissed for want of prosecution and consequently, the civil revision was also dismissed vide order dated 11.5.2012.
Under such circumstances, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned herein.
Present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 Abhishek