2026:CGHC:26163 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 700 of 2026 Smt. Anita W/o Shri Mohitram, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Dhangawan, Tahsil Pendraroad, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, C. G. ... Petitioner(s) versus Mohitram S/o Shri Hetram, Aged About 45 Years R/o Tendupara, Purani Basti, Pendra, P. S. And Tahsil Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. Present R/o New Sinchayi Colony, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Pritam Tiwari, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 25.06.2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned 1st District Judge, Pendra Road, District-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in unnumbered execution case (Smt Anit Vs Mohitram), whereby the execution application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed for non-compliance of order dated 09.03.2026. Petitioner has filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.06.27 16:48:40 +0530 Wp227 700 of 2026 2 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P1). 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to restore the proceedings before the learned trial Court. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may pass any order in the interest of justice in favor of the Petitioner toward finding of the truth.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife would submit that the petitioner had earlier prosecuted an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, District-Bilaspur in Civil Suit-11A/2023. Respondent was her husband and non-applicant before the learned trial Court. The said Civil Suit was decreed in favour of the petition vide judgment and decree dated 03.09.2025, by which a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been granted in favour of the petitioner. Said judgment and decree has been challenged by the respondent/husband before this Court in FA(MAT)-398 of 2025. However, in the appeal, there is no interim order in favour of the respondent. Petition is prosecuting an execution application in execution of the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2025. The said execution proceeding was fixed for 09.03.2026 and in absence of non-applicant/respondent, petitioner was directed to submit the details of movable property of the respondents for its attachment for execution of the decree. The date was fixed as 16.03.2026 and on the said date, petitioner could not submit Wp227 700 of 2026 3 the details of movable property of the respondent for the reason that since 4-5 years, petitioner is residing separately from the respondent, and she was unaware of the movable property of the respondent. That very occasion, i.e.16.03.2026, learned executing Court dismissed the execution application for non-compliance of the order dated 09.03.2026. He would further submit that now, the petitioner collected the information about the movable property of the respondent and one opportunity may be granted to her to submit the same before the learned executing Court for execution of judgment and decree dated 03.09.2025. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. Petitioner/wife has not disputed that the petitioner is executing the decree dated 03.09.2025, which has been passed by the learned trial Court in her favour. However, she could not dispute that the appeal FA(Mat)-398 of 2025 is pending consideration before this Court. On perusal of document Annexure P5, annexed with the petition, it transpires that there is no interim order in the said appeal filed by the respondent. The order-sheet of the learned trial Court dated 09.03.2026 transpires that the petitioner was directed to submit the details of the movable property of the respondent. However, on the next date, when she could not produce the said details, her execution application was dismissed. The reason/explanation submitted by the petitioner is that, since she is residing separately from the respondent since 4-5 years, she was Wp227 700 of 2026 4 unaware of the details of movable property of the respondent. The given reason/explanation appears to be plausible, which requires consideration, and the learned executing Court could have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner/wife, instead of dismissing the executing application. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned executing Court for deciding the execution application filed by the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, on its own merits. 7. Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned executing Court on 15th July, 2026 and on that day, petitioner is directed to comply with the order dated 09.03.2026 and then, the learned executing Court shall proceed the execution proceeding in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid directions, petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma