Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22912 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1344 of 2024 Petitioner :- Asghar Ali Respondent :- Manzoor Ali Khan And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Bakhteyar Yusuf Counsel for Respondent :- Abhai Kumar Singh,Awadhesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri Bakhteyar Yusuf, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhai Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. By means of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the order dated 8.12.2023 passed by the executing court whereby his application seeking adjournment of the execution proceeding has come to be rejected. Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is not in fact judgment debtor of the decree passed in OS No. 654 of 2018 as decree was passed in a suit filed against Abdul Quadir and he was not a party to that suit. Mr. Yusuf submits that he has taken this plea in paragraph 10 of the petition. It is further submitted that petitioner entered a fresh tenancy by virtue of agreement reached between the decree holder on 31st May, 2018. Per contra, it is submitted by Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the decree holder/ respondent that petitioner as matter of fact has the the original tenant as is also reflected from the application filed under Section 151 CPC that he wanted to get substituted as heir/successor. It is further submitted that it is no where averred in entire application filed by the petitioner that he could not be subjected to decree to which he was not a party. An adjournment according to Mr. Singh has been prayed in the execution case only for the reason that petitioner had instituted a suit for injunction in which 6C application came to be rejected against which he had preferred miscellaneous appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, what I find is that in paragraph 7 a plea that has been taken to the effect that SCC case was filed in the year 2019 after letting the shop to the petitioner with some ulterior motive as new tenancy being entered on 30th August, 2018 but nothing has been stated as to the decree passed for eviction in the suit and plea taken is that tenancy was since a new one, therefore, decree was not binding. These averments that have been taken in paragraph 7 are based on personal knowledge and run absolutely contrary to what has been pleaded in miscellaneous application filed under Section 151 CPC as only statement that has come to be taken is that there was an injunction application pending, and therefore, decree could not have been put to execution. In my considered view, a valid decree passed by the court of law if executable then merely because some injunction suit has been filed in which 6C application has come to be rejected, will not come in the way of the execution of the decree against judgment debtor. It was always open for the petitioner to have questioned the decree itself while instituting a suit before appropriate forum. In the given facts and circumstances of the case where only plea taken is that since miscellaneous appeal against order of injunction application was pending, execution proceeding cannot interfered with and, therefore I do not find any manifest error in the order passed by executing court. Petition lacks merit and is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Sanjeev Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad