2025:JHHC:34095 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1054 of 2025 ------ Bipin Kumar Gupta @ B.K. Gupta, son of Sri Mohan Ram Gupta, resident of Gaddi Mohalla, Panchgarhi, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. Dr. Amitava Trigunait, son of Anil Kumar Trigunait, resident of Angarpathra, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad 2. Smt. Usha Devi, wife Late Amarnath Jaiswal, resident of Shiv Mohalla, Panchgarhi Bazar, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad 3. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Katras Section, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Katras Bazar, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad 4. The S.D.O. (Revenue), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Katras Bazar, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate For the JSERC : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sweta Shukla, Advocate ------ Order No.02 / Dated : 14.11.2025 Petitioner is the judgment debtor, who was impleaded as defendant no.2 in the original Title (Eviction) Suit No.23 of 2008 filed under Section 11(a) and (d) of Jharkhand Buildings (Least, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. 2. The suit was decreed and the appeal was preferred by the present petitioner before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad. During the pendency of appeal, an objection petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the CPC which has been rejected by the learned executing court. 3. Objection petitions were filed by the defendant nos.1 & 2 and 3 & 4 under Section 47 of the CPC, which were separately registered as MCA No.100 of 2023 and MCA No.120 of 2023. Both these petitions have been rejected by the learned executing court by two separate orders dated 12.08.2025 on the ground that the defect in decree cannot be agitated before the learned executing court and the proper forum was appellate court where the matter was pending in appeal. 2025:JHHC:34095 4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that order does not specify in which case the order has been passed. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced, I do not find any merit in the civil miscellaneous petition. Appeal is pending before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad against the order of trial Court and therefore, there was no occasion to raise this issue before the executing court. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed with cost. Cost assessed to Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand). Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit Uploaded 14.11.2025