Dismissed

Nazim Ali v. Addl. District and Session Judge,Court NO.3, Gonda and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2025A227/549/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the dismissal of an execution application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. He claimed title via an oral will executed by a deceased third party who previously obstructed the execution. Finding the will lacked material support and noting no suit for declaration was filed, the court dismissed the petition and directed expedited execution.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; execution court directed to execute decree within one month.

Nazim Ali Vs Addl. District and Session… — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15967

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 549 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Nazim Ali

¶5

Respondent :- Addl. District And Session Judge,Court No.3, Gonda And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Manish Vaish,Yogesh Singh

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- Umeshwar Pratap Pandey,Ishwar Dutt Shukla

¶7

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri I.D.Shukla, learned counsel for private respondent nos.2 to 4.

¶9

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.1.2023 whereby the execution filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. was dismissed.

¶10

The facts in brief are that the respondent landlord had instituted eviction proceedings against the main tenant which stood concluded upto the High Court. During the pendency of the proceedings against the main tenant, one Salik Ram Singh filed an impleadment application in eviction proceedings which was rejected. Simultaneously, the said Salik Ram Singh also filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be the owner of the property by virtue of a Will executed in his favour. It is informed that the said suit has also been dismissed for want of prosecution. After the attempt of the said Salik Ram Singh to intervene in the eviction proceedings was rejected, he filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. obstructing with the execution of the decree on the ground that he was in possession of the property by virtue of the Will executed in his favour. The said application was rejected. It was challenged by the said Salik Ram Singh by filing a petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing Case No.27153 of 2021. The said petition was allowed by means of the order dated 4.2.2022 with direction for expeditious disposal of the objection filed by the said Salik Ram Singh under Order 21 Rule

¶11

97/99/101 C.P.C.

¶12

It is informed at the bar that the said Salik Ram Singh died on 13.12.2022. After his death, an application was moved by the petitioner stating that the said Salik Ram Singh had executed an oral Will in favour of the petitioner on 7.12.2022 in the presence of two witnesses and on foundation of the said, moved an application for substitution as well as under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C.. The court has rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner was a third party and the main objection filed by Salik Ram Singh under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. has already been dismissed.

¶13

The petitioner did not have any separate claim. It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no suit for declaration was filed by the petitioner with regard to the alleged Will executed in his favour.

¶14

Considering the timing of the Will which is said to have been executed on 7.12.2022 and the death of Salik Ram Singh who died on 13.12.2022, prima facie the petitioner has tried to set up a case without there being any material in his support. No suit for declaration in respect of the alleged Will has been filed by the petitioner till date. It is a clear case of the petitioner trying to encroach the property without having any right for the same. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 18.1.2023 passed by the executing court. As the initial suit was filed in the year 2012, I direct that the executing court shall execute the decree within a period of one month and the executing court shall send a report to this court.

¶15

In the failure of the executing court to comply with the directions given by this Court, a report shall be sent, which shall be dealt with suitably, on the administrative side.

¶16

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.3.2025

¶18

Shukla

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nazim Ali v. Addl. District and Session Judge,Court NO.3, Gonda and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazim Ali v. Addl. District and Session Judge,Court NO.3, Gonda and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar and Others Vs Additional District Judge Court No. 1 Barabanki and Others

Smt. Pushpa Devi and Others U/a 227 Vs Addl. District Judge Court No. 4 Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Vimal Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Pappu Soni @ Satya Kumar Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Shwetabh Tripathi Vs Narendra Nath and 12 Others