Sahdeo Sonar Vs Jagdish Sonar

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:18076 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 392 of 2023

¶3

Sahdeo Sonar, aged about 60 years,

¶4

Arjun Sonar, aged about 45 years

¶5

Sanjay Sonar, aged about 33 years All sons of Karu Sonar, resident of village and P.O. Jamu, P.S. Markachcho, District-Koderma

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.Jagdish Sonar, son of late Natho Sonar

¶8

Kavita Devi, wife of Sri Jagdish Sonar, resident of village and P.O. Jamu, P.S. Markachcho, District-Koderma

¶9

Gangadhar Sonar, son of Nathu Sonar, resident of village and P.O. Jamu, P.S. Markachcho, District-Koderma

¶10

Opposite Parties

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

For the Petitioners : Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate

¶13

09/Dated: 07/07/2025

¶14

Heard Ms. Puja Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2.

¶15

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 13.02.2023 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 2019 (Arising out of Execution Case No. 05/2013), passed by learned Munsif, Koderma whereby the petition filed under Section 47 read with Order XXI, Rules, 22, 23, 97, 98 and 101 of the C.P.C. has been rejected by the learned court.

¶16

Ms. Puja Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners along with one Gangadhar Sonar had filed Civil Misc. Case No. 03/2019 in Execution Case No. 05/2013 resisting the execution of judgment of decree dated 03.03.2009 passed in Title Suit No. 21/2007 by the learned Munsif, Koderma. She submits that plaintiffs have instituted Title Suit 1

¶17

( 2025:JHHC:18076 )

¶18

No. 21/2007 against the defendants in the court of learned Munsif, Koderma praying therein a decree for declaration of their right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over Schedule-A lands and the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by judgment dated 20.03.2009 and preliminary decree was prepared and against the said judgement the petitioners have preferred Title Appeal No. 19 of 2010 which was further dismissed by judgment dated 20.06.2013 and against that Second Appeal No. 136 of 2013 was filed and the said second appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 26.10.2018. She further submits that in this back ground the plaintiffs/decree holder instituted the execution case being Execution Case No. 05 of 2013 in which objection petition has been filed which has been rejected by the learned court which has been challenged in W.P.(C) No. 2709 of 2019 and by order dated 03.07.2019 a Coordinate Bench of this Court has been pleased to dismiss the same by a reasoned order. She submits that the petitioners have further filed petition before the executing court which was rejected by order dated 20.05.2023 which was challenged before this Court in C.M.P. No. 708 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by order dated 17.03.2025. She submits that now another petition has been filed before the learned court which has been rejected. She submits that decree is not executable and fraud aspect is there in view of that the learned court has wrongly passed the order. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 submits that even the order of the trial court has been affirmed up to the second appeal and thereafter the execution case has been filed and the order dated 03.05.2019 was challenged by the petitioners herein in W.P.(C) No. 2709 of 2019 which was also dismissed by order dated 03.07.2019. He submits that the order dated 20.05.2023 was passed by the executing court which was challenged in C.M.P. No. 708 of 2023 and the said C.M.P. was rejected by this Court by order dated 17.03.2025 and against that order SLP being Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14443 of 2025 was preferred before the

¶19

¶20

( 2025:JHHC:18076 )

¶21

Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed vide order dated 23.05.2025 and one petition and another petition are being filed frivolously before the learned court in view of that the learned executing court has rightly passed the order. 5. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the petitioners herein have filed one petition to another petition on the garb of different provision of law however, the tenor of all the petitions are objection of the execution petition. One of the order was subject matter in W.P. (C) No. 2709 of 2019 which was dismissed by order dated 03.07.2019 and another was subject matter in C.M.P. No. 708 of 2023 which was dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2025 and the order of the C.M.P. was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed. Thus, in view of dismissal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the dispute raised in the present petition has already attained finality and it is an admitted position that the petitioners herein are the judgment-debtor. The petitioners herein are admittedly judgment debtor. Further in a pending proceeding if a petition is already decided the same nature of petition is a res judicata, that is well settled.

¶22

In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed.

¶23

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶24

Satyarthi/-

¶25

Sahdeo Sonar v. Jagdish Sonar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahdeo Sonar v. Jagdish Sonar

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

Arjun Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs Union of India And Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Punam Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Roshan Jamil Ansari Vs Kriti Mahatha

Mohammad Azad Alias MD Azad Khan Vs Mohammad Shamim