MAQBOOL ALAM Vs. JUBEDA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a Title (Partition) Suit No. 22 of 2001 was filed, which was decreed on 6.2.2008 by the Sub-Judge-I, Chaibasa by accepting the modified report submitted by the Pleader Commissioner. The said order was challenged in the Title Partition Appeal No. 15 of 2008 in which, the matter was compromised between the parties and the Title Partition Appeal No. 15 of 2008 has been disposed of in terms of compromise vide order dated 17.6.2009. Two years thereafter, an execution case being, Execution Case No. 3 of 2011 has been filed in which, the petitioner filed his objection claiming that the property which has been sought to have been demolished does not form part of the scheduled property and therefore, no order of execution could have been passed with respect to the said property. From the materials brought on record as well as the impugned order dated 29.1.2013, I find that in the Execution Case No. 3 of 2011, the Nazir had prepared a report dated 13.5.2012 and submitted the said report to the trial court wherein, it has been reported that certain structures with respect to which the decreed property pursuant to the compromise order passed in Title Appeal No. 15 of 2008 needs to be demolished. The learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner has not filed any objection to the report dated 13.5.2012. The learned trial court has taken note of the fact that a final decree pursuant to the compromise order passed in Title Appeal No. 15 of 2008 has yet not been passed. The learned trial court, in view of the report of the Nazir, has passed the impugned order dated 29.1.2013.

(2.) I find no error in exercise of the jurisdiction by the trial court and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.