Dismissed

Aasad Qureshi v. Abdul Ajim

Chhattisgarh HC7 Aug 2015WP227/581/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging an order rejecting an application against execution of a decree. The Court held that any decree holder can move an execution application without signature of all holders under Order XXI Rule 15 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging rejection of objection to execution of decree was dismissed.

Aasad Qureshi Vs Abdul Ajim — Execution and Attachment | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WP227 No. 581 of 2015

¶4

Aasad Qureshi S/o Late A.G. Qureshi, Aged About 40 years R/o In Front Of Jama Masjid, Near Balgovind Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil-Rajnandgaon, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Abdul Ajim S/o Abdul Ajij, Aged About 45 Years R/o Juni Hatari Rajnandgaon, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, Civil And Revenue District- Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh

¶8

Abdul Alim, S/o Abdul Ajij, Aged About 40 Years R/o Juni Hatari Rajnandgaon, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, Civil And Revenue District- Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondents

¶10

For Petitioners.

¶11

: Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.

Order On Board

07/08/2015

Heard.

(1) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has assailed legality and validity of order dated 07.02.2015 passed by Executing Court, rejecting petitioner’s application against execution of decree.

¶16

(2) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that unless application for execution of decree is signed by all the decree holders, no proceedings for execution can be drawn, as such, application is contrary to the provisions contained in order XXI Rule 15 CPC. Reliance has been placed in the case of Tikaram Parashar Vs. Damodar Prasad Tiwari and Others, 1985 MPLJ730.

¶17

(3) The objection for execution of decree, on the ground stated is utterly misconceived in law on the face of provisions contained in order XXI Rule 15 CPC which allows any of the decree holders to move application for execution of decree not only on his own behalf

¶18

but on behalf of other decree holder unless the decree imposes any condition to the

¶19

contrary.

¶20

(4) It is not the case of the petitioner that there is express stipulation in the decree

¶21

under execution requiring all the decree holders to join the application for execution.

¶22

(5) In this view of the matter, the Court below has not committed any illegality in

¶23

rejecting petitioner’s objection against execution of decree.

¶24

(6) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

¶27

Judge

¶28

Amita

Aasad Qureshi v. Abdul Ajim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aasad Qureshi v. Abdul Ajim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dubey Singh Kashyap Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies, Raipur and Ors.

Girdharilal Gorakh and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shailendra @ Raja Gorakh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jaisingh Vs State

Ramdhan Patel and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

J. P. Dwivedi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh