1 2025:CGHC:10502 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 321 of 2020 Murli Manohar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Tiwari Aged About 62 Years R/o Math Para, Chandi Mandir Chowk, Radhakrishna Mandir , Durg , District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Shri Bihari Lalji Mandir Durg , District Durg Chhattisgarh, Bihari Lal Ji Mandir Private Trust Committee, R/o Koshtapara Durg , Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Vishal Prasad Dewangan (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-11-2024. 3. Jaylal Prasad Dewangan (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-11-2024. 4. Budhram Dewangan (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-11-2024. 5. Chaturbhuj Dewangan (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-11-2024. 6. Bisauharam @ Himachal (Died And Deletd) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-11-2024. 7. Manrakhan Dewangan (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-11-2024. 8. Ballusao Dewangan (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-11-2024. 9. Keshoram Dewangan (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-11-2024. 10.Puransao Dewangan (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-11-2024. 11.Chaitram Dewangan (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-11-2024. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.03.18 11:06:22 +0530 2 12.Thagiya Bai Died Through L.R. Kumari Bai, W/o Shri J.P. Tiwari , R/o Mathpara, Premises Of Chhota Math , Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. T. K. Jha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 04/03/2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned executing Court i.e. 3rd Civil Judge Class-I, District-Durg in Execution Case No. 1320/1986 dated 13.02.2020 whereby the objection raised by the petitioner along with an application U/s 151 of CPC has been rejected. 2) The facts of the present case are that Shri Bihari Lalji Mandir was established in the year 1864. Manrakhan Dewangan filed a civil suit for eviction against Thagiya Bai and it was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 13.02.1981. Thereafter, Thagiya Bai preferred a first appeal (FA/66-A/1982) before the 1st Additional District Judge, Durg which was dismissed on 12.10.1985. Subsequently, a second appeal (SA/535/1985) was also preferred before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.05.1988. Respondent No. 1/decree holder filed an execution case before the learned executing Court against Thagiya Bai on 01.07.1991 and a possession warrant was issued on the same date. The judgment debtor preferred a Civil Revision (CR/07/1991) before the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Durg and the same was rejected vide order dated 12.11.1992. The judgment debtor again filed an objection before the learned executing Court which was also rejected vide order dated 3 28.01.1993. Another Civil Revision (CR/03/1993) was preferred by the judgment debtor before the learned 4th Additional District Judge Durg but the same was rejected on 16.08.1993. Civil Suit No. 14-A/1984 was filed by Janardan Prasad claiming relief of declaration to the effect that Shri Bihari Lalji Mandir is a public trust and he was its “Sarvarakar”. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.01.1990. Jamuna Bai challenged the said judgment and decree by filing a Miscellaneous Appeal which was dismissed as she was proceeded ex- parte vide order dated 18.01.1994. Jamuna Bai preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the same was also dismissed. During the pendency of the execution proceeding, one Jugal Kishor filed WP/332/1994 against the rejection of his application filed U/s 47 of CPC and the order passed by the learned executing Court whereby the objection was rejected, was set- aside and the matter was remitted back to the learned executing Court to decide it afresh. The learned executing Court directed the judgment debtor and decree holder to submit oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims vide order dated 24.07.2013. On 13.02.2020, the learned executing Court rejected the objection raised by the petitioner and issued an attachment warrant against him. After the death of Jamuna Bai, Thageshwar Prasad represented Shri Bihari Lalji Mandir as its “Sarvarakar” and that order was never challenged by the petitioner or judgment debtor. With regard to the status of Shri Bihari Lalji Mandir as a public or private trust, the learned executing Court observed that this issue is not involved in the present execution case. 3) Mr. Anand Shukla, counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in 4 the order dated 24.07.2013 passed in WP/334/1994, this Court categorically held that “a trust may be a private trust for some years but it may become public trust after some point but at the time of execution, the executing Court is required to examine whether it is a public trust or private trust and who is entitled to execute the decree because owner of the property is a trust and not Sarvarakar, trustee or other persons. Therefore, the executing Court is required to decide the question as to who is entitled for execution of decree on behalf of the trust.” He further submits that the co-ordinate Bench allowed the petition and set-aside the order passed by the executing court dated 16.08.1993 and remitted back the matter to decide it afresh. He contends that the executing Court has not decided the issue as to whether the trust is public or private even though there was a clear direction in WPS/332/1994 to the executing Court to decide this issue. He further contends that the order passed by the executing Court dated 13.02.2020 is erroneous and contrary to the directions issued in WP/332/1994, therefore, its order may be set-aside. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 opposes. He submits that the petitioner has no right to challenge the order passed by the learned executing Court. He further submits that the petitioner was not a party in the earlier suits or in appeal; and in earlier suits, the learned civil Court as well as the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has categorically held that Shri Bihari Lalji Mandir is a private trust. He contends that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court have been affirmed in SA/16/1986 and SA/105/1972. He referred to the judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in SA/16/1986 dated 05.02.1993 wherein it was held that the judgment 5 passed in Civil Suit No. 14-A/1984 whereby the respondent was declared as Sarvarakar of the trust which was declared a “public trust” was based on perversity. He further contends that judgments and decrees passed in SA/16/1986 and SA/105/1972 have not been challenged by the petitioner or defendants and thus, both judgments attained finality. He argues that the execution has been pending before the learned executing Court since 1991. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on the record. 6) The petitioner has moved an application to implead Khigeshwar Prasad Dewangan who is representing Shri Bihari Lalji Mandir as its Sarvarakar. He was not a party to the lis since its inception. This petition was filed in the year 2020 and the interim order has been operating in favor of the petitioner since 23.03.2020 and the execution proceeding has been stalled. There are judgments and decrees wherein it is held that Shri Bihari Lalji Mandir is not a “public trust”, rather it is a “private trust”. The suit was filed by one Manrakhan Dewangan which was decreed and he was declared the Sarvarakar of Shri Bihari Lalji Mandir which was declared a public trust. Despite knowledge of these facts, the petitioner failed to move any application immediately after filing the writ petition, therefore, in my opinion, at this stage, the application moved by the petitioner for impleadment of a party cannot be allowed. Consequently, I.A. No. 7 is hereby rejected. 7) The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in its orders passed in SA/105/1972 and SA/16/1986 dated 13.08.1975 and 05.02.1993, respectively has concluded that Shri Bihari Lalji Mandir is a private trust, therefore, any contrary finding in this regard cannot be accepted. 6 8) The petitioner preferred WP/332/1994 challenging the order passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Durg dated 16.08.1993 whereby the order passed by the learned 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Durg was affirmed wherein the application moved U/s 47 of CPC was rejected. This Court vide order dated 24.07.2013 set aside the order dated 16.08.1993 and remitted back the matter. The co-ordinate Bench made observation to the effect that the trial Court was required to determine the status of Shri Bihari Lalji Mandir either as a public trust or private trust. It was also observed that the learned executing Court is required to decide the question as to who is entitled to execute the decree on behalf of Shri Bihari Lalji Mandir. The executing Court considered the history of the case and made the observation that a public trust is registered according to the provisions of Section 4 of the C.G. Public Trusts Act, 1951. It had opined that the District Collector/ Registrar declares a trust as public trust according to the provisions of Sections 3 and 4(iii) of the Act, 1951. It was further opined that the authority concerned conducts inquiry according to the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, 1951 and then a decision is taken by the said authority according to the provision of Section 6 of the Act, 1951. It also opined that the Registrar notifies the trust in its register according to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, 1951. It was averred that the objector/petitioner could not adduce evidence to establish these facts; therefore, it cannot be held that Shri Bihari Lalji Mandir is a public trust. The findings recorded by the executing Court with regard to the status of Shri Bihari Lalji Mandir, in the opinion of this Court, are neither perverse nor illegal. 9) With regard to the execution of the decree, initially, Jamuna Bai was 7 pursuing the case and after her death, Vishal Prasad Dewangan and others were impleaded as a party. The order in this regard was passed on 04.05.2018; the same has not been challenged by the petitioner and therefore, it attained finality. Thus, the learned executing Court has decided the issue as to who may pursue the execution case before it. 10) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned executing Court. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). 11) Interim relief earlier granted is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya