1 2026:CGHC:14433 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 661 of 2025 1 - Radhika D/o Late Shri Lakhan Ram Lodhi, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Khairi (Saaja), Tehsil - Saaja, District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chetanram S/o Late Shri Lakhan Ram Verma Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Jeeratola, Tehsil - Gandai, District - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 2 - Uttam Ram Verma S/o Late Shri Lakhan Ram Verma Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Sandi, Tehsil - Chhuikhadan, District - Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 3 - Uttara Ram Verma S/o Late Shri Lakhan Ram Verma Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Sandi, Tehsil - Chhuikhadan, District - Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Sevati Bai W/o Late Shri Lakhan Ram Verma Aged About 74 Years R/o Village Sandi, Tehsil - Chhuikhadan, District - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anushka Tripathi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board 25/03/2026 1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 17.03.2025, passed ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.04.02 12:54:08 +0530 2 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, in Execution Case No. 01/2017, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, for modification of the preliminary decree dated 03.10.2003 has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 1, Chetan Ram, prosecuted a civil suit, bearing Civil Suit No. 14-A/2002, before the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Khairagarh, for declaration of title of his 1/4th share over the suit property, partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share. The said civil suit was decided on 03.10.2003, and the plaintiff's suit was decreed that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share of the suit property and he is entitled to partition and separate possession to that extent. The first appeal No. 29-A/2003 filed by the defendants before the learned Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 07.02.2004 and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiff was set aside. The said dispute travelled up to the High Court in Second Appeal No. 194/2004, which was decided on 05.09.2014, and the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the trial Court are restored. The plaintiff has filed an application for execution of the decree dated 03.10.2003 before the learned Executing Court on 03.03.2017, which was pending for its consideration. On 19.02.2025, the learned Executing Court received a report with respect to the execution of the decree and delivery of possession to the plaintiff on 06.12.2024. During the pendency of the execution proceeding, the petitioner filed an application on 15.03.2024 under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (I.A. No. 01/2024), which 3 was decided on 17.03.2025, by which her application has been rejected. The said order dated 17.03.2025 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was one of the daughters of the defendant No.1, who has not been a party non-applicant in the execution proceeding. She also inherited the property of her ancestors as per the amendment incorporated in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005; therefore, she is also entitled to her share of the property for which she moved her application for modification of the decree to the extent of shares of the parties. He would further submit that the learned executing Court has every right to decide the dispute between the parties that arises with respect to the execution and satisfaction of the decree and rights of the parties. The application of the petitioner has been dismissed on untenable grounds that the issue raised by the petitioner cannot be decided in an execution proceeding; therefore, the impugned order is liable to be, and the executing court may be directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that in an execution proceeding, the substantive decree cannot be modified, and it is only the jurisdiction of the trial Court to modify the decree in accordance with law if they found any error apparent on the face of the record. Its well-reasoned judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court affirmed by the High Court in a second appeal. The father of the petitioner was the party defendant No.1 in the Civil Suit No. 14-A/2002 and in his presence the decree 4 was passed the learned executing Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction and discretion by holding that the under the execution proceeding the decree cannot be modify and has rejected the application which is based on proper appreciation of facts of the case and law applicable to it. In support of her submission, she would rely upon the judgment of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others 2021 (6) SCC 418. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. The undisputed fact of the case is that a decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 03.10.2003, which has been affirmed by the High Court in Second Appeal No. 194/2004 vide its judgment dated 05.09.2014. In the said decree, the plaintiff was held entitled to 1/5th share of the suit property and also held entitled to partition and separate possession of the same. He was prosecuting the execution application of the decree, which had been passed in his favor and the decree was executed on 06.12.2024 by delivery of possession of the property to the extent of his share, which reflected from the order-sheet dated 19.02.2025 of the learned executing Court. 7. The petitioner is claiming that in the decree she has not been awarded share over the property and in view of the amended provision of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as has been amended in the year 2005, she is also entitled for share over the suit property and therefore, the extent of apportionment of the suit property is liable to be modify. 5 8. From perusal of the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2003 passed by learned trial Court it reveals that the father of the petitioner was a party in the suit as defendant no.1 and in the second appeal also he was defended his case through his counsel and the right of her father over the suit property was considered by the learned trial Court who passed the decree in the suit. 9. It is settled law that the decree cannot be modified in an execution proceeding, and the application for execution is restricted to satisfaction and execution of the decree in its terms. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah (Supra) has held in para 24 and 25 of its judgment that: “24. In respect of execution of a decree, Section 47 CPC contemplates satisfaction of the decree and is aligned with the consequential provisions of Order 21 CPC. Section 47 is intended to prevent multiplicity of suits. It simply lays down the procedure and the form whereby the court reaches a decision. For the applicability of the section, two essential requisites have to be kept in mind. Firstly, the question must be the one arising between the parties and Secondly, the dispute relates to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the c decree. Thus, the objective of Section 47 is to prevent unwanted litigation and dispose of all objections as expeditiously as possible. 25. These provisions contemplate that for execution of decrees, executing court must not go beyond the decree. However, there is steady rise of proceedings akin to a retrial at the time of execution causing failure of realisation of fruits of decree and relief which the party seeks from the courtsd despite there being a decree in their favour. Experience has shown that various objections are filed before the executing court and the decree-holder is deprived of the fruits of the litigation and the judgment-debtor, in abuse of process of law, is allowed to benefit from the 6 subject-matter which he is otherwise not entitled to.” 10. From the perusal of the application filed by the petitioner discloses that she is claiming her right over the property of her father as she could not be made a party non-applicant in the proceeding, and she is entitled to her share. It is the execution proceeding filed by the plaintiff for the execution of the decree by which he is entitled to 1/5th share of the suit property. He is not denying the share of the father of the petitioner, and the petitioner can very well maintain another suit or execution proceeding for partition and separate possession to the extent of the share of the property of her father. Even though she has not been made a party non-applicant, her right over the property is not affected, as the question involves only the partition and separate possession of 1/5 share of the petitioner over the suit property. 11. The consideration of the learned trial Court is found to be based on proper appreciation of the facts and law applicable to it, and the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The petitioner may take recourse to law to redress her grievances in an appropriate proceeding if so advised, and this order may not come in the way of such a proceeding. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok