PURUSHOTTAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 08.01.2018, in Execution Case No.31-A/2013, passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Class-II, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon by dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/decree holder under Order 21 Rule 32 of C.P.C.

(2.) The petitioner No.1 had filed a Civil Suit No.3-A/1977, before the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Rajnandgaon, which was dismissed after completion of trial on 24.03.1977. An appeal was preferred, which was registered as First Appeal No.22-A/1977, before the Court of District Judge, which was allowed by the judgment and decree dated 27.10.1977 and the judgment and decree was passed in favour of the petitioner No.1 granting relief, in his favour by issuing declaration with respect to the title of the suit property and also by granting permanent injunction of restraint against the respondent, prohibiting interference in the possession of the petitioner No.1/plaintiff. Second Appeal No. 269 of 1978 was preferred by the respondent before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was dismissed by the judgment dated 27.11.1978. Thereafter, the judgment and decree in favour of the petitioners became final. Petitioner No.2 and 3 are the purchaser of the suit property, therefore, interested parties.

(3.) In subsequent development, the respondent has granted temporary lease to some person on some portion of the suit land in the year 1983. The petitioner No.1 sold 30 decimals land to Ashok Kumar Parekh and 30 decimals of land to Uday Raj Parekh, petitioner No.2 and 3 respectively. As the purchasers of the property i.e. the petitioners No.2 and 3 from the petitioner No.1 could not get the possession, they moved an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of C.P.C. in which they could not succeed. Thereafter, a W.P.(C) No.2676 of 2001 was filed by them, before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, the same was decided on 13.04.2004 by the Division Bench of this Court, in which the petition was dismissed, however, it was observed that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to approach the Civil Court for execution of the decree or for handing over the possession or to approach the revenue authorities in accordance with law and thus other equally efficacious remedy was available to the petitioners.