1 2025:CGHC:42325 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 822 of 2025 1 - Bhupendra Singh, S/o Late Radhakrishna Singh Aged About 50 Years Occupation- Business, Resident- Near Bus Depot, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kulbhushan Sharma, S/o Late Ramakant Sharma Aged About 30 Years Resident- Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/judgment-debtor : Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For Respondent : None appears Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21. 08.2025 1. The petitioner/judgment-debtor has filed this petition challenging the order dated 29.07.2025 passed in Civil Execution Case No.10/2024 by the learned Fourth Additional District Judge to the First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigarh (C.G.), whereby an application moved by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected. 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the original plaintiff, namely Geeta Devi, filed Civil Suit No.125-A/2013 for eviction and arrears of rent on the ground that the petitioner, without prior approval of the plaintiff, demolished the partition wall, which damaged part of the suit shop. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 14.05.2015, and the following order and 2 decree was passed:- “(1)-प्रतिवादी, गी तिवाहार घरघ डा र डा रयगीढ़ हासी ल एवा जिल रयगीढ़ स्थि एवा अनुसीची "अ" में वार्णि!" दुकानु कामेंका-2 का रिरक् आधि)पत्य तिनु!,य दिदीनुका सी. दी मेंहा का. अवासीनु पर अतिवालब वादी का प्रदीनु कार। अनुसीची -अ तिडाका1 का भागी हा गी। (2)- प्रतिवादी द्वार तिनु!,य दिदीनुका का न्ययलय में में का1 गीई तिकारय रशि7 का वादी प्रप् कार.गी। (3)-प्रतिवादी, तिनु!,य दिदीनुका सी. रिरक् आधि)पत्य प्रदीनु तिकाय. नु. का. दिदीनुका का पच्ची सी रूपय. प्रतिदिदीनु का1 दीर सी. नुकासीनु वादी का अदी कार.गी। (4)-प्रतिवादी, बदी का वादी व्यय भा वाहानु कार.गी। (5)- अधि)वाक् 7ल्का सीची अनुसीर अथवा प्रमेंणि! हा नु. पर भा न्यनु हा दी.य हा । " 3. The petitioner preferred a regular Civil Appeal No.57/2015, and it was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.11.2016. The petitioner preferred Second Appeal No.350 of 2017 which is pending consideration before the High Court. 4. An application for execution was moved by the decree-holder, and in the said proceeding, an application under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the CPC was moved by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that during the pendency of the appeal, the decree-holder has alienated the suit property through registered sale deeds dated 29.03.2016, 03.10.2022 & 14.03.2023. It was also pleaded that the judgment-debtor has already preferred a second appeal before the High Court and wishes to move an application for the grant of stay, and therefore, the execution proceeding may be stayed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner has preferred a second appeal before the High Court, which is pending consideration. He would contend that, as the application for the grant of stay has not been decided in the second appeal, the learned Executing Court ought to have allowed the application. He would further contend that the decree-holder has already alienated the property; therefore, there is a 3 prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. He would pray to set aside the order dated 29.07.2025. 6. I have heard Mr. Sinha at length and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. A civil suit was filed by the original plaintiff, namely Smt. Geeta Devi for eviction and arrears of rent of the suit premises. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 14.05.2015. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Raigarh, and it was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.11.2016. 8. Second Appeal No.350 of 2017 is pending consideration before the High Court. An application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC has also been filed along with the memo of second appeal and the same has not been decided. 9. The decree-holder moved an application for execution. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 151 of CPC in the pending execution proceedings, which has been dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 29.07.2025. 10. Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC reads as under:- “58. Adjudication of claims to, or objections to attachment of property.-(1) Where any claim is preferred to, or any objection is made to the attachment of, any property attached in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the claim or objection in accordance with the provisions herein contained: Provided that no such claim or objection shall be entertained- (a) where, before the claim is preferred or objection is made, the property attached has already been sold; or (b) where the Court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. (2) All questions (including questions relating to right, title or 4 interest in the property attached) arising between the parties to a proceeding or their representatives under this rule and relevant to the adjudication of the claim or objection, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the claim or objection and not by a separate suit. (3) Upon the determination of the questions referred to in sub-rule (2), the Court shall, in accordance with such determination,- (a) allow the claim or objection and release the property from attachment either wholly or to such extent as it thinks fit, or (b) disallow the claim or objection; or (c) continue the attachment subject to any mortgage, charge of other interest in favour of any person; or (d) pass such order as in the circumstances of the case it deems fit. (4) Where any claim or objection has been adjudicated upon under this rule. the order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. (5) Where a claim or an objection is preferred and the Court, under the proviso to sub-rule (1), refuses to entertain it, the party against whom such order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute; but, subject to the result of such suit, if any, an order so refusing to entertain the claim or objection shall be conclusive.]” 11. A bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that the provision deals with the procedure for adjudication of claims to, or objections to, attachment of property during the execution of a decree. It further says that if any objection is made to the attachment on the ground that the attached property has already been sold or questions have been raised relating to right, title, or interest in the property arising between the parties, such an objection shall be decided by the Executing Court. 12. In the present case, the petitioner has not filed a copy of the application moved under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 151 of CPC. 13. A perusal of the order impugned would reveal that the petitioner sought the stay of the execution proceedings on the ground that the decree-holder has already alienated the property, and the second appeal is pending 5 consideration before the High Court. 14. In the present case, there is no issue with regard to the right or title of the parties. The petitioner was directed by the learned Trial Court to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property and to deposit the arrears of rent. If the decree-holder has alienated the property, it would not affect his right to execute the decree. 15. With regard to the second ground, as the second appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending before the High Court, no interim order has been passed in favor of the petitioner, and the application is still pending; he should approach the concerned Court for the grant of stay, and on this ground alone, the execution proceedings cannot be stayed. 16. Considering the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Executing Court. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha