1 2025:CGHC:13891 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 8 of 2019 1 - Smt. Sukwara Bai Wd/o Late Roshan Gahire Aged About 40 Years Petitioners No. 1 To 4 Are R/o Near Tarbahar F. C. I. Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ..........Plaintiffs/ Decree/ Holders., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Abhijit Gahire S/o Late Roshan Gahire Aged About 14 Years Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sukhwara Bai, Wd/o Late Roshan Gahire. R/o Near Tarbahar F. C. I. Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Devendra Gahire S/o Late Roshan Gahire Aged About 12 Years Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sukhwara Bai, Wd/o Late Roshan Gahire. R/o Near Tarbahar F. C. I. Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Vishal Gahire S/o Late Roshan Gahire Aged About 5 Years Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sukhwara Bai, Wd/o Late Roshan Gahire. R/o Near Tarbahar F. C. I. Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Savitri Bai W/o Late Anthoni Aged About 60 Years R/o Jairam Nagar Near Railway Station Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...........Defendants/ Judgement Debtors., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Avinash S/o Late Anthoni Aged About 40 Years R/o Jairam Nagar, Near Railway Station, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ashish S/o Late Anthoni Aged About 35 Years R/o Jairam Nagar, Near Railway Station, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 4 - Abhishek S/o Late Anthoni Aged About 32 Years R/o Jairam Nagar, Near Railway Station, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Agnesh S/o Late Anthoni Aged About 27 Years R/o Jairam Nagar, Near Railway Station, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For respondents No.1,2 & 4 : Ms. Anushree Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.03.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “(A) Set aside/quash the impugned order dated 12.10.2018 (Annexure P/1) and thereby:- i. directing the learned Executing Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), to proceed ahead to get the relevant decree satisfy. Or II. Direct the learned Executive Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), to decide the application U/s 47 afresh by reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after giving the parties an opportunity to file affidavits/counter affidavits along with relevant documents, if any, and further providing them an opportunity to cross examine the rival parties upon the evidences laid by them by way of affidavits. (B)That any other relief, which this Hon'ble court thinks fit in the interest of justice & equity, be kindly granted.” 2. Mr. Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 3 would submit that the money decree of Rs.1,50,000/- was passed against one Anthony Francis on 18.02.2010. He would further submit that Mr. Anthony died in the year 2014 before the decree could be satisfied. He would contend that the application for execution was moved prior to the death of Mr. Anthony and the same was being executed against the respondents/legal representatives of the judgment-debtor. Mr. Shrivastava would further submit that the petitioners did not inherit any immovable property from the late Mr. Anthony. It is also contended that Mr. Anthony was an employee of railways and after his retirement, he received a sum of Rs.6,69,913/- and that amount was withdrawn by Mr. Anthony himself on 04.01.2012 and from that fund, various articles including refrigerator, TV, auto-rickshaw were purchased. He would further contend that an application under Section 47 of CPC was moved by the respondents before the learned Executing Court to the effect that they have not inherited any property from the late Anthony, therefore, the execution proceeding may be dropped. He would also submit that the petitioner herein objected to the said application but the learned Executing Court allowed the application and closed the execution case. Mr. Shrivastava would argue that the learned Executing Court ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to lead evidence to prove the fact that the respondents inherited property from the late Anthony. He would further argue that the respondents failed to submit relevant documents in support of their affidavits where they stated that the -4- amount of retiral dues was invested in the treatment of the late Anthony and in the purchase of various articles. He would also argue that without any inquiry and without ascertaining the fact that whether any property was inherited by the respondents or not, the learned Executing Court closed the execution case, therefore, the order dated 12.10.2018 is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1,2 & 4 would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She would submit that the amount received by the late Anthony was utilized in his treatment and purchase of certain articles. She would fairly submit that an auto- rickshaw was purchased but the same was sold for further treatment of late Anthony. She would contend that at present, the respondents have no movable property purchased from the amount received by late Anthony as retiral dues. She would also submit that the learned Executing Court after considering the entire materials placed on the record, closed the execution case and thus the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. A perusal of the documents would show that there was a money decree of Rs.1,50,000/- against the late Anthony, who died on 05.04.2014. Mr. Anthony was a railway employee and he received retiral dues to the tune of Rs.6,69,913/- 5 6. Admittedly, the said amount was withdrawn from his bank account and it was used for his treatment and in the purchase of certain articles. The affidavits filed by the judgment-debtors before the learned Executing Court would show that certain articles and auto- rickshaw were purchased but as informed by Ms. Mishra the said auto-rickshaw was sold for treatment of late Anthony. 7. Learned Executing Court considered the provisions of Section 52(1) of the CPC and came to the conclusion that the judgment-debtors have not inherited any immovable or movable property from the deceased and thus closed the execution case. 8. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and the provisions of Section 52(1) of the CPC, in my opinion, the learned Executing Court has not committed any error of law in closing the execution case. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). SD/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha