Judgment-debtor challenged substitution of a claimant as legal representative of a deceased decree-holder under Section 47 CPC; executing court rejected. High Court found marriage certificate and pension beneficiary papers established her status and dismissed the petition, affirming the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.198 of 2025
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Choudhary @ Rahul Kumar son of Sublendra Narayan Choudhary resident of Village Parora, P.S.- K. Nagar, District Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vaidehi Raman Pd. Singh, Advocate Mr.Adarsh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 01-07-2025
The record taken up on mentioning being made on behalf of the petitioner.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.198 of 2025 dt.01-07-2025 2/4
of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has been rejected.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.198 of 2025 dt.01-07-2025 3/4
find that the learned executing court proceeded in the matter on the basis of documents submitted by the respondent no.1. One such document is stated to be marriage certificate and in the said certificate, it was mentioned that the deceased decree-holder was a divorcee on the date of marriage. Further pension papers of the deceased decree-holder also attached showing that respondent no.1 was entitled to receive monthly pension in case of death of Dr. Srikant Choudhary, the decree-holder (deceased). When there is no other material produced by the petitioner to show that the respondent no.1 was not the wife of deceased decree-holder and the learned executing court proceeded in the matter having regard to the documents produced before it, there is hardly any occasion for this Court to interfere with such order. Moreover, when the respondent no.1 is beneficiary in pension papers of the deceased decree-holder, this clinches the issue in her favour.
7. In the light of discussion made here-in-above, I have no hesitation in holding that the learned executing court has not committed any illegality or irregularity and there appears no error of jurisdiction so as to interfere with the impugned order and hence, the impugned order dated 13.10.2023 passed by learned Sub Judge-1, Purnea in Money
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.198 of 2025 dt.01-07-2025 4/4
Execution Case No.10/2021 is affirmed.
8. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same is
dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 01.07.2025 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether respondent no.1 was a legal representative of the deceased decree-holder entitled to continue execution, given disputed marital status.
Whether the executing court erred in rejecting the judgment-debtor's Section 47 objection without further inquiry.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rahul Kumar Choudhary @ Rahul Kumar
Dr. Gyan Kumari Rai
Vishal Chaudhary
Ekta Chaudhary
Arun Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
