1 2025:CGHC:42946 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 691 of 2021 * - Chandrapal Guruwani S/o Late Mohanlal Guruwani Aged About 51 Years R/o Tirthani Road New Sarkanda, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner/Plaintiff Versus * - Suresh Guruwani S/o Late Mohanlal Gurwani Aged About 59 Years R/o Tirthani Road, New Sarkanda, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/Defendant For Petitioner : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.i This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case. 10.ii This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 11.11.2021 (ANNEXURE P-1) passed by the 8th Civil Judge Class II, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh being ex facie bad in law. 10.iii This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 10.iv Costs of the petition may also be saddled on the respondents. 2. Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2011 a compromise judgment and decree with regard to permanent injunction was passed on 30.06.2011. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.28 18:51:18 +0530 2 He would contend that despite there being a compromise decree of permanent injunction, the respondent/defendant started interfering with the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over subject shop, therefore, an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC was moved before the learned Executing Court in pending execution proceedings. He would contend that the said application was rejected by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 11.11.2021. He would fairly submit that the petitioner wanted to move an application strictly in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC which states that decree of injunction can be enforced by detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison or by attachment of property. He would submit that the learned Executing Court rejected the application on the ground that the Rent Controlling Authority is not subordinate to the Civil Court, therefore, proceedings pending before it cannot be stayed. He would contend that the application moved by the petitioner has not been decided on merits, rather it has been rejected on technical grounds. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sourabh Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the submission made by Mr. Pranjal Agrawal. He would contend that the learned Executing Court decided the application moved by the petitioner after considering the pleadings made therein. He would further contend that the prayer was made by the petitioner to stay the proceedings pending before the Rent Controlling Authority which was not maintainable and accordingly the application was rejected. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 5. According to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC, decree of injunction can be enforced by detention of judgment debtor or by attachment property on an application moved by decree holder. With regard to stay of the proceedings pending either before the Rent Controlling Authority or by Revenue Court cannot be sought for. The petitioner has sought for relief(s) according to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC, but the learned Executing Court rejected it on technical grounds. The order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the learned Executing Court is hereby set aside. 6. The learned Executing Court is directed to decide the application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. 7. Interim order granted on 06.12.2021 is hereby vacated. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti