Court No. - 36
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9795 of 2018 Petitioner :- Har Narain (Since Deceased) And 3 Others Respondent :- Lala Hemantpat Singhania And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harsh Vikram,Dharm Vir Jaiswal
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the records.
The present petition is directed against an order dated 22.08.2017, 30.11.2017 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/Fast Tract Court, Jalaun at Orai and 20.12.2017 passed by the District Judge, Jalaun at Orai passed in Execution Case No.05 of 2003 and Civil Revision No.627 of 2017, which had arisen out of the Original Suit No.142 of 1988.
At the outset, it is relevant to note that the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to explain as to why the aforesaid orders are being challenged after a period of more than one year.
The records further indicates that the Original Suit No.142 of 1988 had been decreed on 26.10.2002 and the said decree has become final with the dismissal of Second Appeal No.1450 of 2002 decided on 20.05.2016. The matter was taken up before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition which was also been dismissed. After dismissal of the second appeal, the proceedings in Execution Case No.05 of 2003 have been brought to its logical end with the issuance of Dakhal Parwana vide order dated 08.12.2017. It is admitted to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decree has been executed to its ultimate satisfaction and the proceedings in the execution case has been brought to its logical end. The revisional court while passing the order dated 30.11.2017 has also recorded the said fact.
In view of the above scenario, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the decree was executed permanently, without identification of the suit property, wrongly rejecting the objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners cannot be entertained.
The present petition is thus found misconceived and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.1.2019 Himanshu