Dismissed

Ruksana Bibi v. Abdulla Khan

Chhattisgarh HC2 Feb 2026WP227/49/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection by the District Judge of an application for urgent hearing and stay of execution proceedings against petitioners who filed a first appeal with a 7-8 year delay. Court found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ruksana Bibi Vs Abdulla Khan — Execution and Attachment | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:6127

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI

¶6

Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.02.06 16:47:36 +0530

¶7

WP227 No. 49 of 2026 1 - Ruksana Bibi Wd/o Late Md. Safi Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Mani, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Tuafik Khan S/o Late Md. Safi Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Mani, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Rafik Khan S/o Late Md. Safi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mani, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Hamida Khan D/o Late Md. Safi Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Mani, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - Lolo Khan D/o Late Md. Safi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mani, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Abdulla Khan S/o Late Arman Khan Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Mani, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Sher Mohammed S/o Late Arman Khan Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Mani, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Ahmed Rajja S/o Late Arman Khan Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Mani, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Akhtar Rajja S/o Late Arman Khan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Mani, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari with Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate to 4 For Respondent no. 5 : Mr. Topilal Bareth, PL

¶8

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order On Board

03.02.2026

The present writ petition challenges the order dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.), whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking urgent hearing and stay of the execution proceedings initiated by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was rejected.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that father of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had filed a civil suit against the petitioners, which was decreed in his favour. The operative part of the judgment and decree reads as under:

¶14

“i. The Plaintiff is the owner and title-holder of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 282, admeasuring 0.52 ares, situated at Village Mani, Tehsil Pratappur, District Surajpur.

¶15

ii. Out of the suit land, an area measuring 0.12 ares, upon which the Defendants have made unauthorized construction and taken illegal possession, be vacated and peaceful possession thereof be delivered to the Plaintiff.

¶16

iii. Upon delivery of possession, the Defendants be permanently restrained from interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land.

¶17

iv. The Defendants shall bear their own costs as well as the costs of the Plaintiff.

¶18

v. Advocate’s fee shall be payable either as fixed or as per the certificate produced, whichever is less.”

¶19

The aforesaid judgment and decree were passed in Civil Suit No. 31A/2012 by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in favour of father of respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶20

¶21

Learned counsel further submits that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 initiated execution proceedings after a lapse of about 7–8 years. Upon receipt of notice in the execution proceedings, the petitioners came to know about the judgment and decree passed against them. Thereafter, they preferred a first appeal before the learned District Judge, Pratappur challenging the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2018 (Annexure P/3). Since the appeal was filed belatedly, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was also filed seeking condonation of delay. It is further submitted that during execution proceedings, when a warrant of possession was issued in compliance with the decree, the petitioners filed an application seeking urgent hearing and stay of execution, which was rejected by the learned District Judge vide the impugned order. Learned counsel contends that as the execution proceedings are in progress, if the decree is executed, the very purpose of filing the appeal would be frustrated. Therefore, he prays that till the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is decided, the execution proceedings be stayed. He further submits that a short breathing time of 15 days may be granted for early hearing of the first appeal including the application for condonation of delay and interim relief.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 opposes the submissions and submits that the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2018 were passed by the learned Civil Judge in the year 2018 and the petitioners were parties to the civil suit and were fully aware of the passing of the judgment and decree. It is contended that for nearly 7–8 years, the petitioners chose not to file any appeal. Only after the execution proceedings were initiated and notices were issued did they filed an application before the executing Court under Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) seeking stay of execution on the ground that they intended to file an appeal. The said application was rejected by the executing Court. It is further submitted that in such circumstances, the order passed by the executing Court

¶23

¶24

rejecting the application for stay ought to have been challenged. Even otherwise, the appeal filed by the petitioners is grossly delayed by about 7–8 years and unless the delay is condoned, there is no duly constituted appeal in which any interim relief can be granted. The impugned order merely records that since the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has not yet been decided, no interim relief could be granted. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed after due consideration and does not call for any interference.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that the dispute is essentially between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the State is only a formal party.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

¶27

The passing of the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2018 by the learned Civil Judge is not in dispute. The execution proceedings are also pending before the executing Court in which the petitioners have already entered appearance. An application seeking stay of execution was rejected by the executing Court. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a first appeal against the judgment and decree after a delay of 7–8 years. Since the application for condonation of delay has not yet been decided, it cannot be said that a duly constituted appeal is pending before the first appellate Court. Though the Court has the power to grant interim relief in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that the petitioners were sleeping over their rights for 7–8 years and suddenly woke up from slumber claiming urgency and irreparable loss. From the record, it is clear that the petitioners were parties to the civil suit and it cannot be presumed that they were unaware of the judgment and decree passed in the year 2018. On the other hand respondent Nos. 1 to 4 being decree-holders have initiated execution proceedings to enjoy the fruits of the decree.

¶28

¶29

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference.

¶30

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected.

¶31

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Any interim order granted earlier stands vacated.

¶32

After the order was pronounced, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that interim protection may be continued for a period of 10 days which was strongly opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶35

Judge

¶36

H.Ansari

Ruksana Bibi v. Abdulla Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ruksana Bibi v. Abdulla Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manappuram Finance Limited, Vs Shalj Nathaniel

Smt Antim Rai Vs the Managing Director

Kiran Kumar Vs Rajkumar @ Santosh

Church of Christ Mission in India, Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Dharmendra Kumar Soni Vs Ramesh Kumar Soni

Shivanand Dhiwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh