Smt. G. Poornima @ Saritha Vs G.T. Babu (Died Per Lr) — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Smt. G. Poornima @ Saritha Vs G.T. Babu (Died Per Lr) — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with observations: petitioner given liberty to draw the attention of the Family Court, Raipur to the compliance with Order 21 Rule 6 CPC for transfer of the decree; the Family Court directed to consider the relevant documents and proceed in accordance with law. No monetary amount involved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court, Raipur was justified in dismissing the execution proceedings (Case No.08/2021) on the ground that the decree passed by the Family Court, Hyderabad in OP No.65/2009 had not been transferred to it, notwithstanding that the procedure under Order 21 Rule 6 CPC for transfer of the decree had been complied with.

Court's answer

From perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, it is explicit that the due procedure for transfer of the decree has already been complied with.

Ratio / Principle

Since the compliance with Order 21 Rule 6 CPC is not mentioned in the impugned order, the petitioner is at liberty to draw the attention of the concerned Family Court at Raipur to that fact.

Key takeaways

The Family Court, Raipur, after considering the relevant documents demonstrating the transfer of the decree, shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.ratio¶22
Recital of statutory position: under Section 42 CPC, the court executing a decree sent to it has the same powers in executing the decree as if it had been passed by itself (stated in passing as supporting context, not as a decided point).obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, WP227 No. 94 of 2023, decided 26.11.2024 (Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.). The petitioner assailed the order dated 05.11.2022 of the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, whereby Case No.08/2021, filed for execution of the decree dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Family Court, Hyderabad in OP No.65/2009, was dismissed on the ground that the decree had not been transferred to the Family Court, Raipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due procedure under Order 21 Rule 6 CPC had been complied with and the decree stood transferred for execution vide order dated 26.02.2018, copies of the decree, certificate and transfer order having been annexed; counsel for respondent No.4 did not dispute the transfer. Finding it explicit from the annexed documents that the transfer procedure had been complied with, and adverting to Section 42 CPC (executing court's powers), the Court observed that this fact was not mentioned in the impugned order, gave the petitioner liberty to draw the attention of the concerned Family Court at Raipur thereto, and held that the Family Court, after considering the relevant documents, shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. With these observations the petition was disposed of. No cases were cited and no monetary quantum was awarded.

1 / 2

2024:CGHC:46252

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WP227 No. 94 of 2023

Smt. G. Poornima @ Saritha W/o Late G. Bhanu Prakash Aged About 39 Years R/o Quarter No. 1473/1, G.E. Road Charoda, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners

versus

1 - G.T. Babu (Died Per Lr) Nill

AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2024.11.27 11:27:18 +0530

2 - G. Rajeshwari W/o Late G.T. Babu Aged About 66 Years Resident Of 10/13, Behind G.T. Complex Santoshi Nagar, Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3 - G. Lokesh Kumar S/o Late G.T. Bau Aged About 42 Years Resident Of 10/13, Behind G.T. Complex Santoshi Nagar, Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4 - G. Krishna Murti S/o Late G.T. Babu Aged About 47 Years Resident Of 10/13, Behind G.T. Complex Santoshi Nagar, Khamtarai, District Raipur (CG) ... Respondents

For Petitioner	:	Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate.
For Res No.2 & 3	:	None.
For Res No.4	:	Ms. Kusumlal with Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocates.

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. Order On Board

26.11.2024

This Petition has been filed against the order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, whereby, Case No.08/2021 filed for execution of decree dated 10.12.2012 has been dismissed on the ground that said decree passed by the Family Court,

2 / 2

Hyderabad in OP No.65/2009 has not been transferred to the Family Court, Raipur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Order 21 Rule 6 CPC due procedure has already been complied with and decree has been transferred for execution from Family Court, Hyderabad vide order dated 26.02.2018. He submits that the petitioner has filed copy of decree, certificate as well as copy of order for execution of decree has been filed to demonstrate that due procedure has been complied, however, erroneous order has been passed by the concerned Family Court at Raipur.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 would not dispute the fact that decree has already been transferred.

From perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, it is explicit that due procedure for transfer of decree has already been complied with. As per Section 42 of the CPC the court executing a decree sent to it shall have the same powers in executing such decree as if it had been passed by itself.

In the circumstances, since due procedure has already been complied with in terms of Order 21 Rule 6 of the CPC and such fact is not mentioned in the impugned order, so the petitioner is at liberty to draw attention of the concerned Family Court at Raipur about such fact. The Family Court after considering the said relevant documents shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of .

Sd/-

Ajay

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge