RANCHI, India, Oct. 9 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Sept. 9:

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. Petitioner is the judgment-debtor and the instant CMP has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Commercial Court cum Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-I, Chaibasa in Execution Case No.06 of 2019 by which the petition for restoration of his objection petition under Section 47 of the CPC has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated Title Suit No.05 of 2008 was decreed in favour of the opp. Parties for the relief of declaration of title and eviction of the present petitioner from the suit property vide judgment dated 15.04.2010. The decree attained finality and the said execution case was filed on 07.03.2019 for the execution of the decree dated 15.04.2010.

3. Before the aforesaid Execution Case was filed, earlier Execution Case Nos.05 of 2011, 19 of 2015 and 11 of 2016 were also filed, but the same were dismissed for default at two instances and at one instance, the same was dismissed as withdrawn.

4. The objection petition under Section 47 of the CPC was filed on 07.03.2019, inter-alia, on the ground that one of the decree-holders were not made parties and that there was incorrect description of the land.

5. The objection petition under Section 47 of the CPC was dismissed for default vide order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure-4) and restoration application was filed and the same has been rejected against which the instant CMP has been filed.

6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the laches were on the part of the conducting counsel and not on the part of the petitioner who was not informed about the pendency of the matter and consequently, it was dismissed. Reliance is placed on 2010 (1) SCC 391 [Ram Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Har Prasad & Anr.] in which it has been held that party should not suffer due to laches on the part of the non-appearance of the counsel. The ratio of 2009(4) JLJR 717 [Rashidan Bibi vs. Md. Hasan & Ors. ] is also to the same effect.

7. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party(s)/ decree-holders while opposing the prayer has submitted that neither the petitioner nor his counsel did appear before the Executing Court and consequently, the learned Trial Court was constrained to dismiss the suit for default. Even otherwise the plea of non-impleadment of the other decree-holders is not sustainable under Section 47 of the CPC, where the decree is for eviction.

8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and on perusing the materials available on record, it appears that the suit was decreed for eviction by the Trial Court way back in the year 2010 and the First Appeal was disposed of in the year 2024.

9. The main plea taken before the Executing Court by the petitioner is that all the decree-holders had not joined in the execution case which is not sustainable, as eviction can be prosecuted by even one co-owner. Further, after giving sufficient adjournments, the Executing Court was constrained to dismiss the said Misc. Case filed under Section 47 of the CPC for default and further the Executing Court has assigned sufficient and cogent reasons. This Court will be loath while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with a well-reasoned order.

Being devoid of merit, the instant CMP stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.