Dismissed

Digambar Jain Terahpanthi Kothi through Its Manager Mr Rishav Jain v. Sukhdeo Prasad Sinha

Jharkhand HC8 Jul 2022C.Rev./37/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil review petition, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's claim that he was denied an opportunity during the original writ proceedings. The court held the review application devoid of merit as no illegality was shown and no prejudice caused by the non-majority observation.

What did the court decide?

Civil Review application No. 37 of 2022 stands dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Digambar Jain Terahpanthi Kothi through Its Manager Mr… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

[Civil Review Jurisdiction] Civil Review No. 37 of 2022

¶3

Digamber Jain Terahpanthi Kothi through its Manager, Mr. Rishav Jain, Ishri Bazar, District- Giridih, Jharkhand.

¶4

Jharkhand. .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus Sukhdeo Prasad Sinha & Ors. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)

¶5

........... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶6

......... For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate For the Opp. Party(s)/JUVNL : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate For the O. P. No.1 : Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate Mr. Avishek Chandra, Advocate

¶7

05/ 08.07.2022 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior counsel assisted by learned counsel, Ms. Chandana Kumari, appearing for the petitioner herein has submitted, that the petitioner has filed the instant Review application on 06.06.2022 to review the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. [C] no.6657 of 2019 which has been passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner herein / respondent No.1, Digamber Jain Terahpanthi Kothi through its Manager in W.P. [C] no.6657 of 2019.

¶9

Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that this Court while disposing the above-said Writ Petition has observed considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and entire material on record, that the Executing Court is duty bound to execute the decree against a judgment debtor. If a persons is filing an objection under Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 CPC, the same is to be decided with respect to the objection, but he cannot adjudicate the right, title and interest of the objector in an execution proceeding whose application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC has already been rejected by the learned Trial Court in the Eviction Suit No.13 of 2010 from which Execution case arises.

¶10

Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that two Title Suits were filed before the learned Sub Judge, Giridih, for eviction against the respondent nos.2 to 5 i.e. Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Ors now Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited. Both the suits were filed with regard to eviction of respondent nos.2 to 5 and both have been decreed, one filed by the review -petitioner and another filed by the writ petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that both decree holders filed Execution Case i.e. Execution Case No.10/2016 by the writ petitioner and Execution Case No.4 of 2019 has been filed by review petitioner and an objection has been filed under Order 21 Rules 97, 99 & 101 CPC in Execution

¶12

-2-

¶13

Case No.10/2016 filed by the petitioner herein which was admitted and against which the writ petitioner came before this Court in W.P.C. No.6657 of 2019, which was disposed of, by this Court, by directing the Executing Court to decide the objection, but in objection right, title and interest of the parties cannot be decided. However, the grievances of the review petitioner is that on the basis of such order, the Executing Court has dismissed, the objection filed under Order XXI Rules 97, 99 & 101 CPC and thus, the decree which has been passed and has to be executed in Execution Case No.4 of 2019 which creates hindrance in the said Execution case.

¶14

Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Avishek Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the original Writ Petitioner and Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of JUVNL have univocally submitted, that a decree has to be executed by the executing court in terms of the decree passed in Eviction Suit. So far the order passed by the learned Executing Court dated 02.06.2022 passed in Misc. Case No.22 of 2017 is concerned, the same is on the basis of material available on record as the review -petitioner has filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to be added in the original Title Suit i.e. Eviction Suit No.13 of 2010, which was dismissed and no appeal or revision has been preferred and the same attains finality. In an objection filed in execution case, the right, title and interest cannot be decided which has rightly been held by this Court, as such, the Executing Court has passed an order. However, the review-petitioner may seek legal remedy available under the law in Execution Case No.4 of 2019 and the Court may pass necessary order in accordance with law.

¶15

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that nothing warrants to interfere in this Review petition as no illegality or irregularity has been shown by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner in the order passed by this Court, whereby, the Writ Petition vide W.P. (C) No.6657 of 2019 has been disposed of, in terms of the order dated 08.04.2022 without affording opportunity to him. No prejudice has been caused by any observation made by the Court to the present petitioner who has preferred this Review Petition because of non-providing opportunity in W.P. [C] No.6657 of 2019. Accordingly, the instant Civil Review application being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

¶16

( Kailash Prasad Deo, J. )

¶17

Sandeep/

Digambar Jain Terahpanthi Kothi through Its Manager Mr Rishav Jain v. Sukhdeo Prasad Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digambar Jain Terahpanthi Kothi through Its Manager Mr Rishav Jain v. Sukhdeo Prasad Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Vidyalaya and Anr. Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation through Its Deputy Director and Ors.

Y Ramana Rao Vs M/S Timken India Ltd. and Anr.

Afroz Khatoon Vs Muslima Khatoon And Ors.

Siya Ram Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Clement Toppo Vs Sukhdeo Singh the Chief Secretary to the State of Jharkhand

Dularchand Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand