SABITRI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. P.K. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the order which I propose to pass, no notice is required to be served on the respondents.

(2.) IN this writ application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ direction commanding upon the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi to dismiss the Title Appeal No. 59 of 1997 pending before it for want of prosecution and further commanding upon the Munsif, Ranchi, who is executing court, to proceed with the Execution Case No. 10 of 1998 so that the petitioners would be able to get the fruits of the decree.

(3.) THE petitioners' case is that they instituted Eviction Title Suit No. 36 of 1992 in the court of Munsif, Ranchi against the respondents for a decree of eviction on the ground of default and personal necessity. The suit was contested by the defendants -respondents and the same was decreed in terms of the judgment and decree dated 30.6.1997. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the respondents filed Title Appeal No. 59 of 1997 in the court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. The petitioner, who are the decree -holders, also executed the decree by filing Execution Case No. 10 of 1998. Petitioners' further case is that notices were issued in the execution case and pursuant thereto the respondents appeared on 23.4.1998. It is stated that inspite of specific direction in the decree to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the petitioners within three months the respondents did not comply the judgment. After appearing in the execution case the respondents started filing petition for time on the ground that they have preferred appeal before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and they will obtain order of stay of the execution proceeding. Petitioners' case is that since 23.4.1998 on each and every date similar petitions are being filed in the court of Munsif in Execution Case No. 10 of 1998 and the Munsif, Ranchi has been adjourning the case in a routine manner without following the law and procedure. Petitioners' further case is that in the appeal filed by the respondents the office gave office note as far back as on 10.9.1997 pointing out some defects but the same has not yet been removed by the respondents. The respondents are even not taking any step either to move a petition for stay of the execution case or any further step in the appeal. It is alleged that the petitioners moved several times in the executing court for issuance of process for effecting delivery of possession but the court of Munsif has failed to issue the process in -spite of there being no order of stay in Title Appeal No. 59 of 1997. The petitioners, therefore, having no way, moved this Court by filing this application.