(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Execution Case No. 6/2007 was being prosecuted by the Respondents who were the decree holders of the Title (Partition) Suit No. 28/1994 vide judgment dated 27.5.2005 and final decree dated 22007. Petitioner herein filed an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code taking an objection to the execution of the decree. Petitioner claimed that his natural father namely Sarju Hasda had given him in adoption to Dashrath Hasda. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that averment recorded in the opening paragraph of the impugned judgment suffers from error on record on that score where it has been erroneously recorded that applicant, Thakur Hansda was adopted by plaintiff Mukhudi Hemhram.
(3.) Despite knowledge of such adoption and filing of written statement in the title suit by Sarju Hasda, present petitioner was not impleaded as necessary party in the title suit. He therefore sought to object by way of an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code which was accepted by learned Executing Court. In the miscellaneous case being Misc Case No. 2/2007, he filed an application to exhibit a document said to be the written statement filed by Sarju Hasda where under the factum of his adoption by Dashrath Hasda was averred. Learned Court of Sub Judge-1, Jamtara by the impugned order dated 28.4.2008 has however rejected the same. Learned Executing Court has considered the rival pleas of the parties on such application and came to an opinion that the written statement filed by Sarju Hasda in Title Suit No. 28/94 was not in terms of the directions passed by the Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 13/1997/75/2001 where under the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for adjudication. The Defendant, Sarju Hasda had to file written statement within a period of 30 days with cost of Rs.1000/-. Neither was the written statement filed in the Trial Court after remand within 30 days nor was the cost paid. Filing of the written statement thereafter had no sanctity and was treated as nil document which did not have any relevancy to be adduced as an exhibit on the part of the objector/ petitioner herein.