( 2025:JHHC:20727 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 593 of 2025 Sunil Kumar Khandelwal, aged about 53 years, son of Ram Avtar Khandelwal, resident of 127/128, Ansari Road, Near Post Office, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar, District-Hazaribagh …………Petitioner Versus Roop Chand Jain, son of late Sugan Chand Jain, resident of Buttom Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District-Hazaribagh .…… Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : 05/Dated: 28/07/2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed under section 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the entire Execution Case No. 6 of 2013 only on the ground that decree was against plot no. 103 whereas the petitioner has established in plot no.105 and the learned court is proceeding against the petitioner. 3. Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Title Suit No.52 of 1983 was instituted by the petitioner’s grand father along with 17 others making the respondent and others including the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh and Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribag as defendant in the suit. The said suit was instituted for land over Plot No. 103, Khata No.123 of Village Hazari P.S. and District Hazaribag. He submits that the said land was in the nature of Khas Mahal. The opposite party along with co-shares filed the written statement admitting for the land to the over Plot No. 103. He submits that the said suit was decreed by judgment dated 31.03.1989 and against the said judgment the State of Bihar and others preferred appeal ( 2025:JHHC:20727 ) 2 which was numbered as Appeal No.293 of 1989(R) which was dismissed by judgment dated 20.06.2002. He submits that against the said judgement the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and others preferred L.P.A No.508 of 2004 and the said L.P.A. was decided as not maintainable in view of the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Court and the L.P.A. was dismissed being not maintainable by order dated 08.09.2005. He further submits that tenants preferred First Appeal against the judgment dated 31.03.1989 which was numbered as F.A. No. 283 of 1989 (R) which was dismissed as not maintainable by Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court on 21.11.1989. He submits that against the said dismissal of the First Appeal the tenants preferred L.P.A. No. 152 of 1989 (R) before the Division Bench which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.03.1990. He further submits that the tenants also preferred S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court vide S.L.P(Civil) No.6836 of 2006 and the said appeal was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He submits that the suit was decreed for the plot not. 103 however plot no. 105 is also being executed in the said execution case and in view of that a petition was filed and the learned court has not adhered to that in view of that that Execution Case No. 06 of 2013 may kindly be quashed. 4. It is an admitted position that the petitioner happens to be a tenant. The Title Suit No.52 of 1983 was instituted by the petitioner’s grand father along with 17 others. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 31.03.1989 and against that said judgment the State of Bihar and others preferred appeal which was numbered as Appeal No.293 of 1989(R) which was dismissed by judgment dated 20.06.2002. Against the said judgement the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and others preferred L.P.A No.508 of 2004 and the said L.P.A. was dismissed ( 2025:JHHC:20727 ) 3 being not maintainable by order dated 08.09.2005. The tenants preferred First Appeal against the judgment dated 31.03.1989 being F.A. No. 283 of 1989 (R) which was dismissed as not maintainable by judgment dated 21.11.1989. Against the dismissal of the First Appeal the tenants preferred L.P.A. No. 152 of 1989 (R) which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.03.1990. The tenants also preferred S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court vide S.L.P(Civil) No.6836 of 2006 and the said appeal was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Prior to that Second Appeal No. 419 of 2017 preferred by the petitioner and others which was also dismissed by judgment dated 24.06.2024. 5. From the order of the first appeal and second appeal, it transpires that plot no.101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 were the subject matter of the said appeal and in view of that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be misconceived one as both the plots are subject matter of the appeal. The matter travelled upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and what has been discussed hereinabove, it transpires that only to linger the eviction of the petitioner who happens to be a tenant the present proceeding has been brought before the Court. 6. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-