BAISAKHI MOHANTA @ MAHANTA Vs. MANGULU NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 27.11.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Keonjhar in Execution Case No.3 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the learned Executing Court dismissed the execution proceeding as infructuous.

(2.) The case has a chequered history. This is the fourth journey of the petitioner to this Court. Opposite party as plaintiff filed T.S. No.5 of 1983-I in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Keonjhar for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession impleading Ananta Narayan Bhanjadeo and Manoj Manjari Devi as defendants. The suit was decreed exparte. Thereafter the opposite party levied Execution Case No.23 of 1993. A civil court commissioner was deputed for demarcation and delivery possession. On 8.5.1984, the delivery possession was effected. The petitioner filed an application being M.J.C. No.45 of 1984 under Order 21 Rule 99 C.P.C. alleging that the decree holder managed to take possession of a portion of her land in connivance with civil court commissioner and her boundary wall had been broken. Her plea is that she purchased Ac.0.020 dec. by means of a registered sale deed in the year 1968. The opposite party filed objection. The learned Executing Court allowed the said application. Challenging the said order, the opposite party filed Misc. Appeal No.6 of 1985 before the learned District Judge, Keonjhar. The appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the learned Executing Court for fresh disposal. After remand, learned Executing Court appointed a civil court commissioner to demarcate the land. Evidence was led by the petitioner. The petition was dismissed on 11.03.1988. The petitioner preferred Misc. Appeal No.5/88 before the learned District Judge, Keonjhar against the said order. The appeal was allowed on 10.11.1989 and the case was remanded to the executing court with a direction to measure the land of the decree holder by another Amin commissioner and deliver possession of an area Ac.0.020 dec. as described in the sale deed to the petitioner. After remand, a fresh report was submitted by the Amin. M.J.C. No.45/84 was allowed on 27.3.1993. Opposite party preferred Misc. Appeal No.13 of 1993 challenging the said order. The learned District Judge, Keonjhar set aside the order and allowed the appeal on 27.2.1999. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed C.R. No.166 of 1999 before this Court. By order 20.06.2002, this Court allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to the learned District Judge, Keonjhar for disposal of the appeal afresh on merit as well as maintainability.

(3.) Mr. B.N. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ac.0.03 dec. of land of the petitioner has been wrongly delivered by the executing court to the plaintiff. The petitioner has no grievance with regard to the suit schedule land, which has delivered to her. But under no circumstances, the land belonging to the petitioner can be delivered to the plaintiff. It is a mistake of the court. If a court committed mistakes, then it has inherent jurisdiction to rectify the same. The party cannot be remediless.