2025:JHHC:27810 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 785 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar Prasad, S/o Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad, R/o D-81, Road No.1, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Nawal Kishore Prasad, S/o Late Brij Nandan Prasad, R/o D-69, Road No. 1, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi 2. Amarnath, S/o Late Brij Nandan Prasad, R/o D-69, Road No. 1, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi 3. Smt. Usha Sinha, D/o Late Brij Nandan Prasad, R/o D-69, Road No. 1, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi 4. Md. Madhuri Karan, D/o Late Brij Nandan Prasad, R/o D-69, Road No. 1, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Advocate ------ Order No. 03 / Dated : 11.09.2025. 1. The judgment debtor has preferred this civil misc. petition for quashing the entire Misc. Civil Case No. 93 of 2024 filed under Order 21 Rule 106 of CPC for restoration of Execution Case No. 08 of 2003 which was dismissed for default on 01.02.2018. 2. Title Suit No. 16 of 1995/ 29 of 1997 was filed for partition and for cancellation of the registered deed of lease executed on 07.10.1994 in favour of the present petitioner by the father of the plaintiff/decree holder. 3. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 17.04.1998 and the first appeal, preferred against the judgment and decree, is now pending before the Patna High Court. 4. The Execution Case No. 08 of 2003, which was preferred by the decree holder, was dismissed for default on 01.02.2018 and for restoration was filed on 31.07.2024. After filing of the restoration case, Misc. Civil Case No. 93 of 2024 was registered and is now pending for evidence. 5. The petitioner raised objection before the Executing Court regarding the maintainability of the said restoration case on the ground that it had been filed after six and half years from the date of dismissal. 2025:JHHC:27810 6. The said application has not been decided against which the present civil misc. petition has been filed for quashing the restoration case on the ground that it was barred by limitation. 7. In view of the fact that the application on the ground of maintainability is pending before the learned Executing Court, instant civil misc. petition is disposed of with a direction to the Executing Court to dispose of pending application on the issue of maintainability within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This civil misc. petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -