RANCHI, India, June 6 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on May 6:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This civil revision has been filed with a prayer to quash and setting aside the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division (Munsif), Hazaribag in Execution Case No.4 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the execution case has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Execution Case No.4 of 2018 was filed before the concerned court for execution of the decree passed in Title Suit No.160 of 1994 wherein the plaintiff/petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:-

(i) Declaration of title and confirmation of possession.

(ii) The plaintiff/petitioner if found dispossessed or any portion thereof during the pendency of the suit, Khass possession be given to the plaintiff after evicting the defendant therefrom.

(iii) Any other relief or relief(s) to which plaintiff is entitled be passed.

(iv) Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.

4. Finally the said title suit had been decreed in favour of plaintiff vide judgment dated 16.06.1998 and decree dated 15.07.1998.

5. The dependent/O.P. herein has preferred Title Appeal No.33 of 1998 against the judgment and decree passed in said Title Suit No.160 of 1994, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 03.03.2017 and affirmed the judgment and decree of trial court.

6. Learned counsel or the plaintiff/petitioner has further submitted that after dismissal of the said Title Appeal No.33 of 1998, the dependent/O.P. herein had forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff/petitioner herein from the possession of suit land. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed Execution Case No.04 of 2018 which was dismissed on 23.11.2022 on the ground that plaintiff/petitioner is already in possession of the suit land as per the document of the record.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by Civil Judge, Jr. Division (Munsif), Hazaribagh in Execution Case No.4 of 2018 calling for any interference in this revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is fit to be set aside.

8. Perused the record, it appears that after passing the aforesaid decree, the plaintiff/petitioner was dispossessed from some portion of the suit property, hence he filed an execution, which has been dismissed by the Executing Court with reasons that there is no whisper in the decree to provide possession to the plaintiff over the suit land rather his title was declared and possession was confirmed and no material was brought on record during pendency of the suit that the plaintiff has been dispossessed.

9. In the above mentioned circumstances, there appear no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Executing Court dismissing the application for execution.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpJQdfFiDQTS%2BZJJtqqwh84PokouJ6LjNn9hAW04AHAKj&caseno=C.R./32/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010046292023&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.