1 2026:CGHC:6130 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 983 of 2025 1. Kanhaiya Prasad Gupta S/o Late Jaganram Aged About 82 Years R/o Mahamaya Road, Near Mahamaya Gate Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.)........(Judgment Debtor) ... Petitioner versus 1. Nand Kishore Gupta S/o Late Bhagwat Prasad (Dead) Through Legal Representatives- 1.1 - Ambika Prasad Alias Jagdish Prasad Gupta S/o Late Nand Kishore Gupta Aged About 65 Years Occupation Business, R/o Jaistambh Chowk Town, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.).......(Decree Holders) 1.2 - Smt. Tara Devi W/o Dilip Gupta, D/o Nand Kishor Gupta Aged About 60 Years Occupation Homemaker R/o Jaistambh Chowk Town, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.).......(Decree Holders) 2. Sahodari D/o Bhawat (Dead) (No Issues) 3. Jagan Ram S/o Bhagwat Prasad (Dead) Through Legal Representatives- 3.1 - Kunj Bihari S/o Jagan Ram Aged About 65 Years R/o Jaistambh Chowk Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 3.2 - Gangotari D/o Late Jagan Ram (Dead) (Ex-Partee) 3.3 - Mohan S/o Late Jagan Ram (Dead) Through Legal Representatives- 3.3.1 - Smt. Meena Devi W/o Late Mohan Gupta Aged About 60 Years R/o Bauripara, Near Alka Industries Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 3.3.2 - Rajesh Gupta S/o Late Mohan Gupta Aged About 42 Years R/o Bauripara, Near Alka Industries Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 3.3.3 - Dinesh Gupta S/o Late Mohan Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o Bauripara, Near Alka Industries Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.) MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2026.02.05 10:35:33 +0530 2 3.3.4 - Mukesh Gupta S/o Late Mohan Gupta Aged About 38 Years R/o Bauripara, Near Alka Industries Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 3.3.5 - Shobha Devi D/o Late Mohan Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o Bauripara, Near Alka Industries Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 3.4 - Brijbihari S/o Late Jagan Ram (Dead) Through Legal Representatives 3.4.1 - Lata Kesari W/o Late Brijbihari Aged About 64 Years R/o Mayapur, Near City Kotwali Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.)........ (Wrongly Mentioned Address As Shitala Wrad And Sadar Road Ambikapur Dist. Surguja C.G. In Cause Title Of Impugned Order) 3.4.2 - Anup Kesari S/o Late Brijbihari Aged About 34 Years R/o Mayapur, Near City Kotwali Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.)........ (Wrongly Mentioned Address As Shitala Wrad And Sadar Road Ambikapur Dist. Surguja C.G. In Cause Title Of Impugned Order) 3.4.3 - Deepak Kesari S/o Late Brijbihari Aged About 36 Years R/o Mayapur, Near City Kotwali Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.)........ (Wrongly Mentioned Address As Shitala Wrad And Sadar Road Ambikapur Dist. Surguja C.G. In Cause Title Of Impugned Order) 4. Amrit Prasad S/o Late Bhagwat (Dead) Through Legal Representatives- 4.1 - Murari Prasad S/o Late Amriit Prasad Aged About 70 Years R/o Joda Talab Satti Para Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.).........(Wrongly Mentioned Address As Shitala Ward And Sadar Road Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.) In Cause Title Of Impugned Order) 4.2 - Mira Devi Alias Tunni D/o Late Amrit Prasad Aged About 60 Years R/o Joda Talab Satti Para Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.)......... (Wrongly Mentioned Address As Shitala Ward And Sadar Road Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.) In Cause Title Of Impugned Order) 4.3 - Renu Gupta D/o Late Amrit Prasad Aged About 50 Years R/o Joda Talab Satti Para Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.).........(Wrongly Mentioned Address As Shitala Ward And Sadar Road Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.) In Cause Title Of Impugned Order) 4.4 - Anita Gupta D/o Late Amrit Prasad Aged About 45 Years R/o Joda Talab Satti Para Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.).........(Wrongly Mentioned Address As Shitala Ward And Sadar Road Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.) In Cause Title Of Impugned Order) 5. Kesari Devi D/o Late Bhagwat W/o Late Bhola Sao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives- 5.1 - Jaganath S/o Late Bhola Sao Aged About 70 Years R/o Deviganj Road, Near Atul Garments Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.)............ (Wrongly Mentioned As R/o Braham Road Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 3 5.2 - Baijnath S/o Late Bhola Sao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives- 5.2.1 - Smt. Karuna Devi W/o Baijnath Aged About 60 Years R/o Deviganj Road Near Atul Garments Tahsil And P.S. Ambikapur Dist. Surguja C.G..........(Wrongly Mentioned As R/o Braham Road Ambikapur Dist. Surguja C.G.) 5.2.2 - Khushboo D/o Late Baijnath Aged About 35 Years R/o Deviganj Road Near Atul Garments Tahsil And P.S. Ambikapur Dist. Surguja C.G..........(Wrongly Mentioned As R/o Braham Road Ambikapur Dist. Surguja C.G.) 5.3 - Murari S/o Late Bhola Sao Aged About 65 Years R/o Deviganj Road Near Atul Garments Tahsil And P.S. Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.).........(Wrongly Mentioned As R/o Brahman Road Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 5.4 - Kunti W/o Late Bhola Sao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives- 5.4.1 - Smt. Sushma Gupta W/o Late Pradeep Gupta, D/o Late Kunti Aged About 60 Years R/o Sangam Chowk Braham Road Ambikapur Dist. Surguja C.G. 5.4.2 - Shani Gupta S/o Late Pradeep Gupta Aged About 32 Years R/o Sangam Chowk Braham Road Ambikapur Dist. Surguja C.G. 6. Godari Devi D/o Late Bhagwat Sao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives- 6.1 - Ishwar Prasad S/o Late Keshwar Prasad Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Namnakala P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.).......(Wrongly Mentioned As Keshar In Impugned Order).........Judgment Debtors 6.2 - Gyan Prasad Gupta S/o Keshwar Prasad Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Namnakala P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.).......(Wrongly Mentioned As Keshar In Impugned Order).........Judgment Debtors 6.3 - Santosh Gupta S/o Keshwar Prasad Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Namnakala P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.).......(Wrongly Mentioned As Keshar In Impugned Order).........Judgment Debtors 6.4 - Vijay Prasad S/o Keshwar Prasad Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Namnakala P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.).......(Wrongly Mentioned As Keshar In Impugned Order).........Judgment Debtors 6.5 - Smt. Marhi Gupta D/o Keshwar Prasad Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Namnakala P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.).......(Wrongly Mentioned As Keshar In Impugned Order).........Judgment Debtors 4 7. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Surguja Dist. Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate For Respondents No. 1(A) & 1(B) : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 03.02.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Section 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.05.2025 passed by the First Civil Judge Senior Division Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Execution Case No. 4/1979 in which the application under Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC filed by the petitioner was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Civil Suit No. 4A/1979, the First Civil Judge Class-I, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) vide its judgment dated 24.05.1989, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff namely Nand Kishor Prasad for declaring the sale deed dated 10.05.1972 as null and void seeking partition of the suit land and house which was properly description in Schedule B,S,K,G and partitioned it by 1/6 and possession of the same was also sought. Thereafter, the plaintiff Nand Kishor Prasad filed a regular civil appeal before the learned District Judge Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 2A/1989. By the judgment dated 19.03.1991, the judgment passed by the Civil Judge was set aside and decree as claimed was passed. Challenging the same, the 5 petitioner preferred a second appeal before this Court which was registered as Second Appeal No. 255/1991 and vide judgment dated 19.10.2011, the same was also dismissed. SLP preferred against the said judgment, was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) No. 2717/2012 vide order dated 21.02.2012. As certain the decree was obtained by the plaintiff by suppressing certain material facts, challenging the same, a separate suit was filed before the Second Civil Judge Senior Division Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) which is registered as Civil Suit No. 194-A/2016 which is pending consideration before the learned Civil Judge. However, the decree passed by the learned District Judge affirmed by the High Court is put to execution by the plaintiffs. An application under Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC was filed by the petitioner praying for stay of execution till disposal of the subsequent suit, was rejected by the learned Civil Judge. This led to filing of this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the validity of the decree passed by the learned District Judge affirmed by the High Court and SLP(C) against which was dismissed, is under scrutiny before the learned Civil Judge in the subsequent suit, the learned Executive Court ought to have stayed the execution of the decree. Thus, committed an error in rejecting the said application. Hence, the impugned order may be set aside staying the execution of the execution proceedings till disposal of the Civil Suit No. 194-A/2016. 5. Ms. Priyanka Mehta, learned counsel for respondents No. 1(A) and 1(B) submits that the dispute between the parties has traveled from 6 Civil Judge to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The decree was passed by the learned District Judge and thereafter, affirmed by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP(C) against the order of the High Court, thus, there cannot be any agitation raised by the petitioner with regard to validity of the decree impugned. She further submits that the civil suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge initially and the appeal having being allowed, thus, provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC would not be applicable . 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that the decree which is put to execution was passed by the learned District Judge against which the petitioner has preferred second appeal before this Court, this Court on merits dismissed the second appeal, which was subject to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court unsuccessfully by the petitioner. The order of the Supreme Court was passed in the year 2012 and the subsequent suit appears to have been filed in year 2016. The learned Civil Judge while dismissing this application, clearly held that in order to stay the proceedings of execution under Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC, it is necessary that both the cases are pending in the same Court. The learned Trial Court has also held that the proceedings of the execution should not be stayed liberally. The finding so recorded by the learned Executing Court appears to be based on proper appreciation of facts, circumstances and law. 8. It is to be seen that since 1991 till today, the plaintiffs and their successor could not enjoy the fruit of the decree. The submission 7 made by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appeal to this Court and the finding so recorded does not require any interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Manish