-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1095 of 2023 Surendra Kumar Singh aged about 66 Yrs. son of late I.D. Singh, resident of Radium Road, PO & PS Lalpur, District Ranchi. ..... …Petitioner Versus 1. Parijat Vyapar private Ltd., a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at 5th Floor, 12A, Netaji Subhas Road, PO- G.P.O, PS Hare Street Town, Kolkata- 700001, 2. Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal working for gain at at 5th Floor, 12A, Netaji Subhas Road, PO- G.P.O, PS Hare Street Town, Kolkata- 700001, ..... …Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate. For the OP : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate. ------ 07/ 11.02.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 and 2 on caveat. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 27.07.2023, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.-XIV), Ranchi in M.C.A. No. 334 of 2018 (arising out of Ex. Case No.21/2010) whereby the petition filed under Section 47 of the CPC by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite parties instituted the money suit before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in its original jurisdiction against J. Khan, Surinder Kumar Singh and Bankat Garodia for realization of money to the tune of Rs.14 lakhs which was registered as C.S. No. 323 of 2003. The suit was decided ex-parte and decree signed on 07.08.2009 holding fasten liability upon J. Khan, Surinder Kumar Singh and Bankat Garodia to pay Rs.14 lakhs to the decree holder. The matter went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the ex-parte judgment and decree. He submits that Execution Case No. 21 of 2010 was instituted before the learned Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi on the basis of percept under section 46 of the CPC in which the petition under Section 47 of CPC has been filed and the learned court has been pleased to reject the same, as such, the said order dated 27.07.2023 is not in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 and 2 on caveat submits that the matter has travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme -2- Court that the degree has attained finality and the decree is of the year 2009 and more than 16 years have already been passed. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified in the case of “Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors.” reported in 2021 6 SCC 418 that the decree is required to be executed at the earliest. 5. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and looking into the order of learned court dated 27.07.2023, the Court finds that the learned court has dealt with every aspect of the matter and thereafter passed the said order. The decree has attained finality, that has travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rahul S. Shah (supra)” wherein in para-42 of the said judgment, direction has been issued to mandatorily follow the directions made in subsequent paras of 42 and further the decree is required to be executed at the earliest. 6. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order and accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) RKM/-