-1- 2025:CGHC:24194 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 511 of 2025 1 - Abhijit Bose (Dead ) Through The Lrs. - Smt. Dolly Bose W/o Late Abhijeet Bose, Aged About 69 Years, R/o House No.-26, Near Durga Mandir, Maitri Vihar Colony, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Indraneel Bose S/o Late Abhijeet Bose Aged About 46 Years R/o Balaji Vihar, Sejbahar Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Indrajeet Bose S/o Late Abhijeet Bose Aged About 40 Years R/o E1/11, Sec-7, New Rajendra Nagar, Opp. Shweta Vidya Mandir, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ajay Jain S/o Shri Mohan Lal Jain Aged About 39 Years R/o Bastar Road, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari (C.G.). 2 - Deepak Kumar Jain S/o Shri Mohan Lal Jain Aged About 33 Years R/o Bastar Road, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari (C.G.). 3 - Smt. Archana Jain W/o Shri Ajay Jain Aged About 36 Years R/o Bastar Road, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari (C.G.). 4 - Smt. Kamna Jain W/o Shri Deepak Jain Aged About 29 Years R/o Bastar Road, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Neeraj Choubey and Ms. M. Asha, Advocates Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.06.2025 1) The petitioners/judgment debtors have filed this petition challenging the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned District Judge (FTC), Dhamatri, in Execution Case No. 01A/2017 whereby, the application moved by the petitioners for closure of the execution case has been rejected. 2) Facts of the present case, are that Abhijeet Bose was the tenant of the respondents No. 1 to 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction and vacant possession on the grounds of bona fide need and also claimed arrears of rent. The learned trial Court in civil suit No.7A-2007 vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2010 decreed the suit. The learned trial Court directed the original defendants to hand over the possession of the suit shop to the plaintiffs within a period of 2 months, failing which, he had to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/- and a cost of Rs.200/- for damages/per day. 3) The original defendant Abhijeet Bose preferred First Appeal No.34 of 2010 before the High Court and it was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.07.2021. Initially, an interim order was passed in favour of Abhijeet Bose vide order dated 16.04.2010. The decree holder/respondents No.1 to 4 moved an application for execution. The possession of the suit shop was handed over to the plaintiffs in the year 2021. It is also pleaded that an application to record compromise was moved by the parties before the learned Executing Court, but the respondents/decree holders failed to enter into compromise and the learned -3- executing Court directed the judgment debtor to comply with the judgment and decree. 4) Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the judgment debtors are not liable to make payment of the damage part as initially an interim order was passed in their favour in FA No.34 of 2010 dated 16.04.2010. He would further submit that an application to record compromise was also moved on 02.08.2021, but the decree holders failed to comply on their part. He would further submit that in light of the compromise application, the judgment debtors approached the learned Executing Court to close the proceeding but the said application has been rejected. He would also submit that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court got merged with the judgment and decree passed in First Appeal No.34 of 2010 and in First Appeal there is no direction to make payment of penal rent and damages. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramlal v. Jarnel Singh (now deceased) through Lrs & ors. [Civil Appeal No.3245 of 2025 /@ petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5638 of 2023]. 5) I have heard Mr. Choubey at length and perused the documents placed on the record. 6) Admittedly, the judgment debtors are legal representatives of Abhijeet Bose, who was a tenant of respondents No.1 to 4. The suit for eviction, vacant possession and arrears of rent was decreed by the learned trial Court vide -4- judgment and decree dated 25.02.2010. The learned trial Court granted two months’ time to the judgment debtors to hand over the possession of the suit shops to the decree holders, failing which, they had to pay monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/- and damages of Rs. 200/- per day. First Appeal No.34/2010 preferred by the judgment debtors, was dismissed vide judgment 20.07.2021, though initially, an interim order was passed. 7) In the execution case, the application for settlement was moved but it couldn't be materialized, therefore, the contention made by Mr. Choubey that the application for settlement was moved would not come to the rescue of the petitioners. 8) The learned trial Court passed the decree against judgment debtors and the same has been affirmed in First Appeal No.34/2010. 9) The reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Ram Lal (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-43 held that the doctrine of merger operates as a principle upon a judgment being rendered by the appellate Court. 10)Though there is no specific decree with regard to payment of monthly rent and damages in the judgment passed by the Appellate Court, but the judgment passed by the learned trial Court got merged with the judgment passed in First Appeal No.34 of 2010, and there was no need to pass decree separately and the decree passed by the learned trial Court would be executable. 11)In the matter of Ram Lal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para -37 held -5- that “the doctrine of merger is founded on the rationale that there cannot be more than one operative decree at a given point of time and the doctrine of merger applies irrespective of whether the appellate court has affirmed, modified or reversed the decree of the trial Court.” 12)In the present case, the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the decree passed by the learned trial Court and there cannot be more than one operative decree at a given point in time, therefore, the decree passed by the learned trial Court will be executable. 13) 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. Accordingly, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim