SHANKAR LAL GUPTA Vs. RAJESHWARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting-aside the order dtd. 24/4/2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-XIV, Ranchi in Execution Case No.35/2023.

(3.) Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff/opposite party instituted Eviction Title Suit No.16/2007 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Ranchi for eviction of one Md. Isrile Khan from the suit premises being one shop room with a dimension of 13 feet x 18 feet standing in municipal holding no. 183 within Ward No.4 of Ranchi Municipal Corporation situated at Church Road, Dalpatti Police Station Lower Bazar, District-Ranchi with boundary as mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. He submits that the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/ opposite party. He submits that thereafter the decree holder filed Execution Case No.37/2018 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I at Ranchi for execution of the decree dtd. 17/5/2018 passed in the aforesaid eviction title suit. He further submits that in the said execution case, a petition was filed by the petitioners herein on 16/7/2024, which was numbered as MCA Case No.859 of 2024 under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 97. 99, 101 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC, which was admitted on the same day i.e. on 16/7/2024. He submits that the decree holder appeared and filed her objection. He also submits that vide order dtd. 11/2/2025, liberty was provided to the petitioners herein to file schedule of the property in MCA No.859 of 2024 and the matter was further adjourned for two dates and on 20/2/2025, MCA No.859 of 2024 was disposed of as rejected with liberty to the petitioners to file afresh if they wish. He submits that however the order dtd. 11/2/2025 was already complied with by the petitioners herein by way of filing MCA No.129/2025, which was filed on 20/2/2025 itself. He submits that the petitioners were under impression that the matter was adjourned, however, it was disposed of as rejected. He submits that thereafter recall petition has been filed on 25/2/2025 for recalling the order dtd. 20/2/2025. He submits that vide order dtd. 3/3/2025, learned Court has been pleased to recall the order dtd. 20/2/2025 and revived MCA No.859/2024 and MCA No.129/2025. He submits that however vide order dtd. 21/3/2025, the learned Court has again disposed of MCA No.129/2025 on the pretext that MCA No.859/2024 is already disposed of. He submits that again a petition dtd. 3/4/2025 was filed before the learned Court and by the impugned order dtd. 24/4/2025, the learned Court has further rejected the said petition and declined to recall the order dtd. 21/3/2025. He submits that the said MCAs were already revived in view of the recall order dtd. 3/3/2025 and in spite of that, the learned Court has further disposed of those petitions. He submits that once a petition is filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC, the same is required to be decided by the learned Executing Court. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sameer Singh and another v. Abdul Rab and others, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 379. He refers paragraphs 25 and 26 of the said judgment, which read as under: