Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5135 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sajida Begum Respondent :- Digambar Jain Samaj Bijnor And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rekha Singh,Anshul Nigam
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed assailing the validity of the order dated 4.7.2018 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijnor whereby he has allowed the application Ga-3 filed by the decree holder in Execution Case No.14 of 2009 (Digambar Jain Samaj vs. Gopi Chand).
It appears that the plaintiff-first respondent filed SCC No.23 of 2005 (Shree Digambar Jain Samaj, Bijnor through its Secretary Shri Rajeev Kumar Jain vs. Gopi Chand) in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Bijnor against the defendant-second respondent. Finally, the aforesaid case was allowed by the trial court on 5.5.2007 and the decree in question was prepared. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an Execution Case No.14 of 2009 (Digambar Jain Samaj, Bijnor vs. Gopi Chand) in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Bijnor for execution of the aforesaid decree dated 5.5.2007. By the impugned order dated 4.7.2018, the Executing Court directed the Court Amin to dispossess the second respondent from the suit property and hand over the possession of the property in question to the decree holder.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ownership and title of the plaintiff is in dispute and he has no right to sue. He has also no right to take over the possession of the disputed property. The second respondent is not in possession of the disputed property. The petitioner is a widow and she is residing in the property in question since long time. She came to know about the aforesaid litigation for the first time, when the Court Amin came to the petitioner and threatened her to vacate the premises in question and as such, this Court should come for rescue and reprieve the petitioner.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the second respondent and the same was allowed on 5.5.2007. The plaintiff filed the Execution Case in question for execution of the decree dated 5.5.2007. In the aforesaid execution proceeding, the second respondent filed his objection under Section 47 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. on 23.4.2018 and the same has already been rejected. The said order has not been challenged by the second respondent before this Court and the same has attained finality. So far as the impugned order is concerned, the petitioner has no right to assail the validity of the same before this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. However, in case the petitioner is aggrieved and alleges that some collusive decree has been passed, then she has got efficacious alternative remedy to assail the validity of the same before the appropriate Court and as such, no relief can be extended in favour of the petitioner.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 RKP