1 2026:CGHC:22278 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 115 of 2026 M/s Central Automobiles Through Its Partner Shankar Rao, S/o Shri M.B. Rao, Aged About 71 Years, Office At Mahatma Gandhi Road, Near Hotel Manju Mamta, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant. Versus Saurabh Nathani S/o Shri Narayan Nathani Aged About 39 Years R/o Saddani Square, Sadar Bazar, Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. For Respondent : - (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 12/05/2026 Heard on admission. 1. This revision has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the Ninth District Judge, District Raipur, in Execution Case No. 69B/2019 (Sourabh Nathani Vs. M/s Central Automobiles). By the said order, the application filed by the applicant/defendant/judgment debtor (henceforth "applicant/judgment debtor") under Section 151 CPC was rejected. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 2. Facts revealed from the case, in brief, are that an eviction decree was granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder (henceforth "plaintiff/decree holder") against the defendant by the Upper District Judge, Raipur, vide order and decree dated 24.06.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.50A/2012 (Sourabh Nathani Vs. M/s. Central Automobiles). Consequent to which, a direction was issued to the respondent to vacate the subject premises within two months. Subsequently, an execution case was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant/judgment debtor. 3. In the said execution case, the defendant/judgment debtor filed an objection application under Section 151 of the CPC primarily on two grounds. The first was that the order and decree was passed by the trial court under the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth "Act 1961"). The civil suit was filed by the plaintiff on 18.04.2012 and was pending when the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (henceforth "Act 2011") came into effect on 06.11.2012. Thus, Act 2011 came into force prior to the passing of the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2017. Therefore, it is contended that the trial court had no jurisdiction to pass the judgment and decree under the old Act 1961. 4. The second ground was that the suit property was given to the plaintiff/decree holder on lease, but the lease period had not been renewed, therefore, the execution application filed by the respondent/plaintiff deserves to be rejected. However, by the impugned order, the learned Executing Court rejected the application of the applicant as mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this order. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and was passed without considering the material available on 3 record. Referring to Section 14(2) of the Act 2011, learned counsel submits that since the previous proceedings in the civil suit initiated under the repealed Act 1961 were not protected after the Act 1961 was repealed, the order and decree dated 24.06.2017 passed under the Act 1961 are not sustainable. He also submits that the lease period for the suit premises had lapsed and was not renewed, hence, on both counts, the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to an eviction decree against the applicant/defendant. Therefore, it is submitted that the revision may be admitted for hearing. 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the documents placed with the petition. 7. The Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act 2011 came into force in the State of Chhattisgarh vide Gazette Notification dated 06.11.2012. However, a perusal of the order and decree dated 24.06.2017 (Annexure-A/2) passed by the Civil Court shows that the civil suit was instituted on 18.04.2012, which is prior to the enforcement of the new Act 2011. For the sake of brevity, the provisions of Section 14 regarding the repeal and savings of the old Act 1961 are reproduced hereunder: "14. Repeal and Savings. (1) On this Act, becoming law, through notification in the Official Gazette, the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (No. XLI of 1961) in its application to the State of Chhattisgarh is hereby repealed. (2) The repeal under sub-section (1) shall not affect the previous operation of this enactment so repealed and anything done or action taken or deemed to have been done or taken (including any appointment or delegation made, notification, order, direction or notice issued, or rules made), by or under the provisions of the repealed enactment shall, so far as it is 4 not inconsistent with provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the provisions of this Act and shall continue in force unless and until suspended by anything done or any action taken under this Act." 8. A bare perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 14 shows that the operations of the repealed Act are protected, this includes other orders, directions, etc., that are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 2011. Thus, since the original civil suit was filed prior to the enforcement of the new Act, the first contention/ground raised by the counsel for the applicant that the learned trial court had no jurisdiction or authority to pass the order and decree dated 24.06.2017 in the concerned civil suit is not found to be sustainable and, as such, same is hereby rejected. 9. So far as the second ground raised by the applicant/judgment debtor is concerned, if the suit property was given on lease to the respondent/plaintiff, then the respondent ought to have raised an objection before the concerned trial court well within time, which was not found to have been raised before it. Even otherwise, the applicant/judgment debtor has no right to raise such an objection, as the transaction pertains purely to the lessor and lessee. Moreover, the Executing Court has no authority to decide an issue which was never raised before the trial court. 10. In view of the discussion made herein-above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed at the motion stage itself. 11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay