Punam Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manju Devi Respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 are the son of late Hari Prasad Sah and respondent no. 5, 6 and 7 are the daughter of late Hari Prasad Sah, resident of Mohalla-Kelabari Pokharia, near Barki Kali Mandir, P.O., P.S. and District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand

¶13

.…… Opposite Parties

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶16

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, A.C. to S.C.-I For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate

¶17

Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate

¶18

07/Dated: 07/07/2025

¶19

Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶20

Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 to 7.

¶21

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 29.11.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Sahibganj in Execution Case No. 04 of 2018 whereby the Execution Case No. 04 of 2018 filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed by the learned court.

¶22

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶23

that Title Partition Suit No. 12 of 2008 was instituted by the petitioner which

¶24

¶25

( 2025:JHHC:18052 )

¶26

was dismissed by the learned court by judgment dated 31.05.2011 and decree dated 10.06.2011 and against that the petitioner preferred Title (P) Appeal No. 13 of 2011 which was allowed by order dated 22.09.2014 and accordingly decree was prepared. In this background the petitioner filed Execution Case No. 04/2018 which was rejected by the impugned order. He submits that executing court has travelled beyond the scope of executing court power and dismissed the same and in view of that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

¶27

Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 submits that all these mess have been created by the petitioner. He draws the attention of the court of the learned appellate court judgment and submit that the appeal has been allowed partly and only 1/7^th share has been decreed in favour of the petitioner herein by the appellate court however the petition has been filed for execution and all these facts have not been disclosed and the learned court has found that pleader commissioner has bifurcated the property among all the co-sharer. He submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order.

¶28

In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is an admitted position that the suit was dismissed against that appeal was preferred and the same was allowed particularly in favour of the appellant and 1/7^th share was allotted to the petitioner. However, the pleader commissioner bifurcated the same among all the co-sharer wherein the appellate court has only passed the decree in favour of the appellant for share of 1/7^th and in view of that the learned court has passed the order. There is no illegality in the said order. So far the finding of the learned court is concerned, it has been created in view of wrong petition filed by the petitioner herein.

¶29

The petition filed before the executing court is brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit wherein the clear picture was not depicted

¶30

¶31

( 2025:JHHC:18052 )

¶32

before the executing court and the learned court considering that aspect has been pleased to dismiss the petition.

¶33

It appears that in clear term the said petition was not filed and once a decree is there in favour of the petitioner for 1/7^th share in the property and if it has not been challenged and it has attained finality, the fruit of that requires to come in favour of the decree holder.

¶34

In view of that impugned order dated 29.11.2022 passed in Execution Case No. 04/2018 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to file a fresh petition before the learned executing court disclosing the correct picture of the appellate court judgment and the learned court will decide the same afresh by providing opportunity to both the sides.

¶35

This petition is disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶36

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶37

Satyarthi/-

¶38

Punam Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punam Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs Union of India And Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Roshan Jamil Ansari Vs Kriti Mahatha

Sahdeo Sonar Vs Jagdish Sonar

Mohammad Azad Alias MD Azad Khan Vs Mohammad Shamim