1 2026:CGHC:27315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 752 of 2026 1 - Nisar Ahmed S/o Late Mohammad Isha Aged About 75 Years Occupation At Present Retired R/o Mohalla Nawapara, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) Presently At H I G D 36, Akash Type Abhilasha Parisar , Behind New Bus Stand, Tifra District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Musthak Ahmed S/o Late Mohammad Isha Aged About 69 Years R/o Mohalla Nawapara, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Irshad Ahmed (Dead) Through Lrs Nill 3.1 - Smt. Safrun Begum Wd/o Late Irshad Ahmed Aged About 59 Years R/o Mohalla Nawapara, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 3.2 - Samir Ahmed S/o Late Irshad Ahmed Aged About 29 Years R/o Mohalla Nawapara, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 3.3 - Aina Irshad D/o Late Irshad Ahmed Aged About 27 Years R/o Mohalla Nawapara, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.03 17:53:19 +0530 2 4 - Shakil Ahmed S/o Late Mohammad Isha Aged About 60 Years R/o Mohalla Nawapara, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) At Present House No. S- 01/a -24 Vasundhara Vihar Godhanpur, Ambikapur, Distt- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Salma Sheikh (Salma Rizvi) Wd/o Late Asad Rizvi Aged About 68 Years Occupation Advocacy R/o Mohalla Night Chowki Bhatthi Road Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Shama Rizvi D/o Late Asad Rizvi Aged About 27 Years R/o Mohalla Night Chowki Bhatthi Road Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Ali Akhtar Rizvi S/o A. M. Rizvi Aged About 57 Years Occupation Advocacy R/o Behind Rawat Colony Beside The Lane Of Aditya Car Shrinagar, Manendragarh, Road Ambikapur Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, assisted by Mr. Shahid Ahmed Ansari, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Sidhant Tiwari, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 02/07/2026 The present writ petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the 3 learned Principal District Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur in MJC No.140/2026, whereby the matter has been fixed for recording the evidence of the parties on an application preferred by the judgment- debtors under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the decree-holders. A decree of possession was passed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 21.07.2016 in Civil Suit No.430-A/2011 by the learned Principal District Judge, Surguja, Ambikapur. The first appeal preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 3, being FA No.259 of 2016, came to be dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the cross-appeal preferred by the present petitioners, being FA No.168 of 2020, was allowed, resulting in a decree declaring title in favour of the petitioners. The challenge laid by respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the Apex Court by filing SLP (C) Diary No.14172 of 2026 also came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2026. Consequently, the judgment and decree have attained finality. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioners thereafter initiated execution proceedings for enforcement of the decree, which was registered as Execution Case No.178 of 2025 before the Executing Court. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, respondent Nos.1 to 3 instituted an application under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was separately registered as MJC No.140 of 2026 before the learned Principal District 4 Judge, Surguja, Ambikapur, whereupon notices were issued to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that when they entered their appearance and filed their reply, the learned Principal District Judge fixed the case for recording the evidence of the parties without hearing the petitioners/decree holders as to whether recording of evidence is actually required or not. It is contended that the decree has already attained finality and the controversy raised in the application under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC can be decided on the basis of the pleadings and documents available on record. The impugned order directing recording of evidence, without recording any satisfaction as to its necessity, is stated to be arbitrary, contrary to settled principles governing execution proceedings, and likely to cause unwarranted delay in the execution of a final and binding decree. 5. Lastly, it has been contended that any objection relating to the execution of the decree ought to have been adjudicated within the execution proceedings themselves and did not warrant the institution of a separate MJC. On these premises, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, material irregularity and jurisdictional error, and therefore deserves to be set aside in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the 5 documents annexed with the petition. 7. On perusal of the order sheets, it reveals that respondent Nos.1 to 3 instituted an application under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 14.05.2026, whereupon notices were issued to the present petitioners. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners entered appearance on 09.06.2026 and filed their reply. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 19.06.2026. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Principal District Judge fixed the matter for recording the evidence of the petitioners and adjourned the case to 03.07.2026. 8. It transpires from the order sheet dated 18.06.2026 that before directing the parties to adduce evidence, the learned Principal District Judge neither considered the necessity of recording oral evidence nor afforded an opportunity of hearing to the parties on the said issue. The order does not disclose any reasons or satisfaction indicating that recording of oral evidence was indispensable for effective adjudication of the application under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the question whether oral evidence is required in proceedings under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be determined by the Executing Court after hearing the parties and upon recording a reasoned satisfaction that the controversy cannot be effectively adjudicated on the basis of the pleadings and documents already available on record. 6 10. Since the learned Principal District Judge proceeded to fix the matter for recording evidence without first determining the necessity thereof and without assigning any reasons in support of such decision, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.06.2026 is hereby set aside. The learned Principal District Judge, Surguja, Ambikapur is directed to first hear the parties on the question whether recording of oral evidence is necessary for adjudication of the application under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon recording a reasoned satisfaction on the said aspect, the learned Principal District Judge shall thereafter proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge