Shiv Murat Verma and Another vs Jairam

A request has been made in the morning for taking up the urgent petition as it involved demolition of certain premises allegedly in execution of the decree passed by the trial court. The Court has permitted that the said petition to be taken up. It is in this backdrop, the instant petition has been placed before the Court.

¶11

Heard Ms. Shvangi Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:-

¶13

"(i) To set a side the impugned order dated 03.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (S. D.), Ambedkar Nagar in Misc. Case No.61/2026 in re- Shiv Murat and other versus Jairam arising out of Execution Case No.06/2019 in re- Jairam versus Shiv Murat & other, in the interest of justice.

¶14

(ii) To stay the further proceeding of Execution of order dated 02.02.2026 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Ambedkar Nagar in Execution Suit No.06/2019 in re- Jairam versus Shiv Murat & other, during pending instant petition and during pending application dated 04.04.2026 filed by the petitioners before the court below under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC in the interest of justice."

¶15

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the private

¶16

A227 No. 1928 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

respondent Jairam had initially instituted a suit relating to cancellation of a Will which was in favour of the petitioners. It is stated that the said suit came to be dismissed on 11.02.2009.

¶19

It was further urged that while the aforesaid suit for cancellation was pending the private respondent instituted another suit for permanent injunction wherein the petitioner was not served. The said suit came to be dismissed ex parte on 16.03.2011. Thereafter the private respondent preferred Civil Appeal No.88 of 2011 assailing the ex parte dismissal of the injunction suit. Even in the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner was not served and thereafter the said appeal was allowed ex parte on 21.07.2012.

¶20

It is urged that the private respondent thereafter instituted an execution case which came to be registered as Execution Case No.6 of 2019 whereby the decree for injunction was sought to be executed. It is the case of the petitioner that no notice was received by the petitioner from the Executing Court. It is only on 18.03.2026 that the Amin had visited the property and had affixed summon indicating that some demolition was contemplated in pursuance of an order passed by the Executing Court on 02.02.2026 it is thereafter that the petitioner became aware and immediately the petitioner moved an application seeking recall of the order dated 02.02.2026.

¶21

The said application for recall was rejected by the Executing Court on 30.03.2026. Thereafter the petitioner took recourse to filing objections under Section 47 CPC on 02.04.2026 which also came to be rejected by the Executing Court on 03.04.2026. In the intergnum the petitioner preferred a civil revision before the District Judge against the order dated 30.03.2026, whereby the application of the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 02.02.2026 was rejected. The said revision is still pending wherein the date is fixed for today i.e. 15.04.2026.

¶22

It is also urged that in the meantime the petitioner had also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC, in Appeal No.88 of 2011 which was decided ex parte on 21.07.2012, seeking recall/re-hearing of the appeal on merits. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said application is pending. However, she could not inform as to what

¶23

A227 No. 1928 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

is the status or what is the next date fixed on the said application.

¶26

It is in the aforesaid factual backdrop that now the petitioners have instituted the instant petition assailing the order dated 03.04.2026 by which the objections preferred by the petitioners under Section 47 CPC were rejected. At this stage, a specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioners as to how the instant petition would be maintainable as against an order rejecting the objections under Section 47 CPC where the petitioners have a statutory and alternate remedy available in law.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue, that the matter is pending before the different courts and different applications are engaging the attention of the Court and in case if the said applications are not taken up or the instant petition is not heard, the demolition would take place which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Executing Court and is also against the intent of the decree put in execution,

¶28

A specific query was also put to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the said judgment and decree which has been put in execution has been placed on record, to which it has been answered in the negative and it has been stated that there is no copy of the judgment and decree and in the aforesaid circumstances, the same could not be placed on record.

¶29

Be that as it may, since disputed questions of fact are involved and the petitioners have already taken recourse to multiple options coupled with the fact that against the order dated 03.04.2026, the petitioners have the statutory remedy of filing a revision before the District Judge, hence in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petitioner and it is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to take recourse as may be available in law.

¶30

It is made clear that this petition has not been entertained for availability of alternates statutory remedy and in case if the petitioners exercises their right to take recourse as may be available in law, the same shall be considered on its own merits.

¶31

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶32

April 15, 2025/ ank

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Murat Verma and Another v. Jairam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Murat Verma and Another v. Jairam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajat Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 17 Others

Geeta Devi vs Mangal Prasad and 14 Others

Pradeeep Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

C/M Ganga Apartment Resident Welfare Society Thru. Secy. Shri. Devi Shankar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and 4 Others

The New India Assurance Company Limited Thru.Deputy Manager,Legal Hub Lko. vs Ram Shree and 3 Others

Omkar Nath Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others