1 2025:CGHC:18504 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 371 of 2025  Smt. Sarkar W/o Satyabhushan Sarkar Aged About 90 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Manendragarh, District M.C.B. (Chhattisgarh) (Judgment Debtor) Plaintiff ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Smt. Leela Agrawal W/o Shri Gopal Prasad Agrawal Aged About 75 Years R/o Kali Mandir Road, Near Bus Stand Manendragarh, District M.C.B. (C.G.) (Decree Holder Defendants) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, M.C.B., District M.C.B. (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ramsevak Soni, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 24-04-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- (i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned First District Judge Manendragarh, District Korea (Now M.C.B.) Chhattisgarh, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, further this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside whole execution proceeding execution case No. 04/2025 of learned First District Judge Manendragarh, District Korea (Now M.C.B.) Chhattisgarh, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.04.28 18:20:44 +0530 2 2) The facts of the present case are that the petitioner/original plaintiff/judgment debtor instituted Civil Suit No. 26A/2001 for the redemption of the mortgage. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was the registered owner and was in possession of the land bearing survey No.202/7 situated at Village Hansiya Nadi, P.H. No. 10, District- Koriya (C.G.) [now District- M.C.B.]. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff mortgaged his 2 acres of land for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/- through a written document dated 17.10.1990 for a period of three years. The defendant filed the written statement and denied the plaint averments. The civil suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2003. Thereafter, FA No. 28 of 2004 was preferred by defendant No. 1 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2018. Subsequently, the defendant preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 12538/12539 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide judgment dated 19.11.2024, the Apex Court set-aside the judgments passed by the learned trial Court and the High Court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, therefore, it would be open for the defendant to pursue the appropriate remedy seeking possession in accordance with the law. An application for execution was moved by the defendant and the learned executing Court vide order dated 09.04.2021 has observed that the decree holder (defendant) is entitled to have possession of the suit property and directed the SDO(R), Manendragarh to pass the order of mutation. 3 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the litigation, the suit property has been alienated to many persons and they were not arrayed as a party before the learned Executing Court. He further submits that the learned Executing Court cannot pass the order of delivery of possession in favor of the defendant as there is a specific direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that respondent No. 1 may pursue appropriate remedy seeking possession in accordance with the law. He prays to set-aside the order dated 09.04.2025. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. 5) Heard. 6) It appears that after the dismissal of the suit by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, defendant No. 1 moved an execution application before the learned Executing Court for delivery of possession. The petitioner herein moved an application and raised an objection to the effect that the suit property has been alienated in favor of many individuals. It is also stated that no counter claim was filed by the defendant and no court fee was affixed, therefore, the decree of possession cannot be executed in favor of respondent No. 1. The learned Executing Court held that during the pendency of the suit, the property was alienated to many persons. It is also held that the SDO(R), Manendragarh has passed the order of mutation in favor of defendant No. 1 and the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was taken care of. 7) Section 47 of the CPC deals with questions to be determined by the Court executing the decree and the same is reproduced herein below:- 4 47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree:- (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.[* * *] (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court. [ Explanation I .-For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit. Explanation II .- (a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and (b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section. ] A bare reading of this Section would make it clear that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which a decree was passed, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit, thus, the learned Executing Court rightly executed the decree and there is no need to file a fresh suit. 8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the provisions of Section 47 of CPC, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya