1 2025:CGHC:15986 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 393 of 2017 1 - Deelip Singh @ Deelip Waliya S/o Amar Singh Sardar, Aged About 50 Years R/o In Front Of Jai Bhole Complex, Behind Mata Garage, Behind House Of Guddu Khan, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Pradeep Waliya, S/o Amar Singh Sardar, Aged About 48 Years R/o In Front Of Jai Bhole Complex, Behind Mata Garage, Behind House Of Guddu Khan, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deepak Waliya (Died) Through Lrs In Comliance Of Honble Court Order Dated 16/08/2022 3.1 - (A) Rekha Kaur Waliya W/o Late Deepak Waliya Aged About 42 Years R/o In Front Of Jai Bhole Complex, Behind Mata Garage, Behind House Of Guddu Khan Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3.2 - (B) Aman Singh Waliya S/o Lae Deepak Waliya Aged About 16 Years Aman Singh Being Minor Represented Through Mother Rekha Waur Waliya R/o In Front Of Jai Bhole Complex, Behind Mata Garage, Behind House Of Guddu Khan Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Shakuntala Waliya, W/o Amar Singh Sardar, Aged About 70 Years R/o In Front Of Jai Bhole Complex, Behind Mata Garage, Behind House Of Guddu Khan, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1- Ishwari Prasada Soni Dead Through Lrs A 1.1 - Inna Soni S/o Late Ishwari Prasad Soni R/o Amapara, Khaprabhatti, Opposite Hanuman Mandir, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - Smt. Sushila Soni Wd/o Late Ishwari Prasad Soni R/o Amapara, 2 Khaprabhatti, Opposite Hanuman Mandir, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - S/o Satish Soni, S/o Late Ishwari Prasad Soni R/o Amapara, Khaprabhatti, Opposite Hanuman Mandir, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - Yatish Soni S/o Late Ishwari Prasad Soni R/o Amapara, Khaprabhatti, Opposite Hanuman Mandir, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 1.5 - Sunil Soni S/o Late Ishwari Prasad Soni R/o Amapara, Khaprabhatti, Opposite Hanuman Mandir, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Adv. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 04-04-2025 1) Facts of the present case are that respondents filed a suit for possession against one Amar Singh Sardar, who was father of present petitioners pertaining to Khasra Nos. 527 and 528 situated at Village Pandri, P.H. No. 10, Tehsil and District Raipur which was decreed vide judgment dated 25.11.1992. Thereafter, first appeal was preferred by Amar Singh Sardar and same was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.07.1996. Second appeal was also preferred which stood abated as Amar Singh Sardar died in the year 2006. In pursuance of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 25.11.1992, execution proceeding was initiated and decree was executed. After getting the possession as per decree, respondents (decree holders) have already disposed of the property to a third party. In the meanwhile, application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC was filed by the petitioners for appointment of Commissioner which remained pending. 3 On 20.02.2017, respondents chose not to press the execution application and consequently, learned Executing Court closed the proceeding. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application U/o 26 Rule 9 of CPC was moved by the petitioners (judgment debtor) and same was not decided and execution proceeding was closed without deciding the objection raised by the petitioners. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that when the execution proceeding itself was not pressed, there was no occasion for the learned Executing Court to keep the application moved by the petitioners pending. 4) Heard. 5) Perusal of the order impugned dated 20.02.2017 passed by the learned 13th Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur (C.G.) i.e. Executing Court would reveal that the decree-holder did not press the application for execution, therefore, execution proceeding was closed by the learned Court below. In opinion of this Court, as the execution application was not pressed by the decree holder, there was no occasion for the learned Court to keep the proceeding pending, thus there is no infirmity in the order impugned. 6) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made out for interference with the order impugned. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya