Dismissed¶25

Deo Bachan Prasad v. Bhairo Nath Sonkar

Jharkhand HC9 Sept 2025C.M.P./613/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C. M. P. No.613 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 09.09.2025 by Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Keywords: Article 227 Constitution of India; Section 47 CPC objection petition; dismissal for default and restoration rejected; execution of eviction decree; execution by one co-owner; non-joinder of decree-holders; Title Suit No.05 of 2008, decree dated 15.04.2010; Execution Case No.06 of 2019 and earlier E.C. Nos.05 of 2011, 19 of 2015, 11 of 2016; Commercial Court cum Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-I, Chaibasa; counsel-cited precedents Ram Kumar Gupta v. Har Prasad, 2010 (1) SCC 391 and Rashidan Bibi v. Md. Hasan, 2009(4) JLJR 717; CMP dismissed.

What did the court decide?

A decree for eviction can be prosecuted in execution by even one co-owner; the plea that all the decree-holders had not joined in the execution case is not sustainable.

Deo Bachan Prasad Vs Bhairo Nath Sonkar — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:JHHC:27432

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No.613 of 2025

¶3

Deo Bachan Prasad, S/o Late Mishrilal Khatik, R/o Mohalla Mission Compound, Dumbisai, PO and PS- Chaibasa, District- West Singhbhum, PIN-833201, Jharkhand. .... .. ... Petitioner(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

Bhairo Nath Sonkar

¶6

Kashi Nath Sonkar

¶7

Bishwanath Sonkar All sons of Late Kishun Ram @ Kishan Lal Sonkar, R/o Mohalla Mission Compound, Ward No.6 (Old 5), PO, PS and Town – Chaibasa, District- Singhbhum West, PIN-833201, Jharkhand.

¶8

Munni Devi, W/o Late Kishun Ram @ Kishan Lal Sonkar, R/o Mohalla Mission Compound, Ward No.6 (Old 5), PO, PS and Town – Chaibasa, District- Singhbhum West, PIN-833201, Jharkhand. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate

¶11

Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate Mr. Mrinal Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate

¶12

04/ 09.09.2025 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Petitioner is the judgment-debtor and the instant CMP has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Commercial Court cum Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-I, Chaibasa in Execution Case No.06 of 2019 by which the petition for restoration of his objection petition under Section 47 of the CPC has been dismissed.

¶14

Briefly stated Title Suit No.05 of 2008 was decreed in favour of the opp. Parties for the relief of declaration of title and eviction of the present petitioner from the suit property vide judgment dated 15.04.2010. The decree attained finality and the said execution case was filed on 07.03.2019 for the execution of the decree dated 15.04.2010.

¶15

Before the aforesaid Execution Case was filed, earlier Execution Case Nos.05 of 2011, 19 of 2015 and 11 of 2016 were also filed, but the same were dismissed for default at two instances and at one instance, the same was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶16

2025:JHHC:27432

¶17

The objection petition under Section 47 of the CPC was filed on 07.03.2019, inter-alia, on the ground that one of the decree-holders were not made parties and that there was incorrect description of the land.

¶18

The objection petition under Section 47 of the CPC was dismissed for default vide order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure-4) and restoration application was filed and the same has been rejected against which the instant CMP has been filed.

¶19

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the laches were on the part of the conducting counsel and not on the part of the petitioner who was not informed about the pendency of the matter and consequently, it was dismissed. Reliance is placed on 2010 (1) SCC 391 [Ram Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Har Prasad & Anr.] in which it has been held that party should not suffer due to laches on the part of the non-appearance of the counsel. The ratio of 2009(4) JLJR 717 [Rashidan Bibi vs. Md. Hasan & Ors. ] is also to the same effect.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Opp. Party(s)/ decree-holders while opposing the prayer has submitted that neither the petitioner nor his counsel did appear before the Executing Court and consequently, the learned Trial Court was constrained to dismiss the suit for default. Even otherwise the plea of non-impleadment of the other decree-holders is not sustainable under Section 47 of the CPC, where the decree is for eviction.

¶21

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and on perusing the materials available on record, it appears that the suit was decreed for eviction by the Trial Court way back in the year 2010 and the First Appeal was disposed of in the year 2024.

¶22

The main plea taken before the Executing Court by the petitioner is that all the decree-holders had not joined in the execution case which is not sustainable, as eviction can be prosecuted by even one co-owner. Further, after giving sufficient adjournments, the Executing Court was constrained to dismiss the said Misc. Case filed under Section 47 of the CPC for default and further the Executing Court has assigned sufficient and cogent reasons. This

¶23

2025:JHHC:27432

¶24

Court will be loath while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with a well-reasoned order.

¶25

Being devoid of merit, the instant CMP stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands dismissed.

¶26

( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶27

Sandeep/-

Deo Bachan Prasad v. Bhairo Nath Sonkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deo Bachan Prasad v. Bhairo Nath Sonkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tapeshwar Lal Sahu Vs Bimla Devi And Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Authorised Signatory Anurag Lal Vs Ruposi Devi

Hardeep Singh Sidhu Vs Harcharan Singh Sidhu

Umesh Kumar Roy Alias Umesh Prasad Roy Vs Masomat Yashoda and Ors.

The Divisional Manager the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Its Sr Divisional Manager Vs MD Mustafa Ansari Alias MD Mustafa and Anr.

Ms Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs Mosomat Yashoda and Ors.