1 2025:CGHC:17335 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 985 of 2019 1. Chinturam S/o Late Ramadhar Satnami , Resident Of Village Agar , Tehsil Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Keval Ram S/o Late Ramadhar Satnami , Resident Of Village Agar Tehsil Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Ginti Bai D/o Late Ramadhar Satnami , Resident Of Village Agar , Tehsil Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Kamin Bai D/o Late Ramadhar Satnami , R/o Village Dongaria, Tahsil And District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5. Smt. Amin Bai D/o Late Ramadhar Satnami, R/o Village Farhad , Tehsil And District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6. Chaitram D/o Late Ramadhar Satnami R/o Village Agar, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh.....Petitioner No 01 Chinturam Is Power Of Attorney Holder On Behalf Of The Remaining Petitioner No . 2 to 6 ... Plaintiffs/Petitioners Versus 1. Jagdish S/o Late Jagtu Satnami R/o Village Agar, Tehsil Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Chandu Alias Sukhru S/o Late Jagtu Satnami R/o Village Agar, Tehsil - Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Defendants/Respondents For Petitioners : None appeared even in two rounds For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15/04/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 16/08/2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by 2nd Additional District Judge Durg misc civil appeal no. 11/2018 in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate.” 2. Father of the petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 100A/93 claiming therein a decree of eviction and vacant possession of the suit property bearing Survey No. 630 admeasuring 0.12 hectare. Defendants were proceeded ex-parte and an ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 10.04.1995. 3. An application for execution was moved and a possession warrant was issued by the learned Executing Court against the judgment debtor. During the pendency of that application, the decree holder and judgment debtor both expired. The sons of the decree holder got possession of the suit property but later on, the judgment debtors secured forcible possession of the suit property, therefore, the decree holder moved an application under Order 21 Rule 100 of CPC for restoration of possession. The learned Executing Court vide order dated 21.03.2018 rejected the application. The petitioner preferred a miscellaneous appeal. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 16.08.2019 dismissed the appeal. The learned Courts below recorded a finding that after the satisfaction of the decree, a fresh application for execution is not maintainable. 4. Perused the order impugned passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Durg. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the decree passed by the learned trial Court was executed and possession was handed over to the decree holder and later on, the judgment debtor again took possession of the suit 3 property, therefore, an application under Order 21 Rule 100 CPC was moved for restoration of possession which was dismissed by the learned trial Court and later on, the learned Appellate Court also affirmed the finding. Once the decree was satisfied, in the opinion of this Court, the subsequent application for restoration of possession would not be maintainable and in my opinion, the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application under Order 21 Rule 100 of CPC preferred by the petitioners. 6. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti