BEDRAM @ PRETRAM SAHU Vs. URMILA BAI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 28/2/2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gariaband (C.G.), whereby the first appeal preferred by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 103 of C.P.C. has been dismissed as not maintainable.

(2.) The petitioner had moved an application under Order 21 Rule 97, 99 and 101 of C.P.C. before the learned Executing Court on the ground that he is in possession of some part of the suit property and a Civil Suit for declaration W.P.(227) No. 257 of 2022 of title is pending before the competent Civil Court, therefore, the execution of decree may be stayed till conclusion of the Civil Suit. The application moved by the petitioner was rejected by the learned trial Court after adjudicating the issues raised by the petitioner, holding that the petitioner has not been dispossessed from the property.

(3.) The brief facts of this case are that respondent No.1 Urmila Bai Sahu alongwith her mother Phoolkunwar filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 175, 176, 447 and 458, admeasuring 1.39 hectares situated at Tehsil Rajim, District Raipur. The case was registered as Civil Suit No. 32A/2003 and vide judgment dtd. 27/11/2006 it was decreed in favour of respondent No.1 and Janki Bai who were held to be owner of half of the suit property. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court was upheld by this High Court in Second Appeal No. 383/2007 vide judgment dtd. 10/12/2019.