Vijay Mashrani (Petitioner in Person) Vs Ravi Jain

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:825

¶3

AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.01.08 11:33:44 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

CR No. 1 of 2025

¶7

1 - Vijay Mashrani (Petitioner In Person) S/o Bhupat Rai Mashrani Aged About 60 Years R/o E-13, Sector-2, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Ravi Jain S/o Late Shri K. M. Jain Aged About 46 Years R/o D-70/5, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.

¶11

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Honble Court 1st Additional District Judge, Raipur, C.G.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Mashrani, Petitioner in Person. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Dilmani Raj Minj, GA.

¶14

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

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

07.01.2025

¶17

This Revision has been filed against the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Execution Case No.72A/2019, whereby, objection raised by the petitioner/judgment debtor that NOC was not obtained by the decree holder from the Raipur Development Authority, therefore, the decree is not executable, has been rejected.

¶18

Facts of the case, in short, are that on 10.01.2019, a decree has been passed in favour of the decree holder/respondent Ravi Jain by the Additional

¶19

2

¶20

District Judge, Raipur in Case No.182-A/2015 and a direction has been issued to obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ from Raipur Development Authority for further proceedings. Thereafter, the decree holder moved an application before the Raipur Development Authority on 16.09.2019 for grant of No Objection Certificate, however, no certificate was issued in his favour. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the instant application under Section 47 of the CPC stating therein that the decree holder has not applied for NOC before the competent Authority in the prescribed format and no NOC has been obtained by the decree holder since last 5 years and in such circumstances, the decree is not executable and thus prayed to discharge the decree. However, the Executing Court dismissed the said application by the order impugned and issued show cause notice to the competent Authority of Raipur Development Authority for not issuing NOC. Hence, this revision.

¶21

Heard the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

¶22

Admittedly, a decree has been passed against the present petitioner and the Executing Court for compliance of the said decree and for specific performance of sale, directed the decree holder to obtain NOC from Raipur Development Authority, however, the competent Authority did not take any decision in this regard, despite the fact that the decree holder has moved an application before the Authority. When no order was passed by the said Authority, learned Executing Court, while dismissing the objection of the judgment debtor, also issued a show cause notice to the concerned Authority. However, no response was received from the Authority.

¶23

3

¶24

In such circumstances, it is expected from the Government machinery as well as the concerned Authority to act in a responsible and diligent manner and to take steps within a reasonable time. It is also expected from the Raipur Development Authority to deal with the issue in accordance with law in a prompt manner.

¶25

The concerned Authority is also expected to respond and communicate the concerned Executing Court in a prompt manner.

¶26

Apart from the aforesaid, considering the scope of revisional powers, this Court is of the view that the revisional jurisdiction of High Court is discretionary and is used to ensure that justice is done. Further, the Court may only intervene if an order would cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to a party. However, considering the observation made in the impugned order, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in it and thus the same requires no interference by this Court.

¶27

Accordingly, the revisions fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶28

Shri Dilman Rati Minj, GA who is representing the State, shall apprise about this order to the concerned Authority.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶31

Ajay

Vijay Mashrani (Petitioner in Person) v. Ravi Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Mashrani (Petitioner in Person) v. Ravi Jain

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

Manikram (Died) through Legal Heirs Vs Raman Lal (Died)

Itwara Bai Vs Lekhram

Dharmraj Singh Vs Principal

New Life Health and Education Society Vs Dr. Rakesh Sharma

Gopal @ Bhuru Tandi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Jain Vs Ratan Kumar Sharma