1 CGHC010251452026 2026:CGHC:28056 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 773 of 2026 Rajesh Murarka S/o Late Nathmal Murarka Aged About 64 Years R/o Sai Krishna Palace, D D M Road, Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Late Rampyari Murarka Through Lrs Nil 1.1 - Mukesh Murarka S/o Late Nathmal Murarka Aged About 55 Years R/o Murarka Petrol Pump, Power House Road, Korba, Tehsil And Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Suresh Murarka S/o Late Nathmal Murarka Aged About 52 Years R/o Murarka Petrol Pump, Power House Road, Korba, Tehsil And Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sarita Murarka D/o Late Nathmal Murarka Aged About 35 Years R/o Murarka Petrol Pump, Power House Road, Korba, Tehsil And Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Tehsil And Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Saroj Agrawal W/o Mohan Lal Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Main Road, Bargarh, Tehsil And Distt. Bargarh, Odisha. 6 - Manju Agrawal W/o Ratan Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o 504, B-Wing, Prathmesh Horizon, Nearby H.H.B. Colony, Boriwali, Distt. Mumbai, Maharashtra. 7 - Mamta Jajodia W/o Ravikant Jajodia Aged About 46 Years R/o Flat No. 404, 4th Floor, B-Block, Kashish Central Avenue, Nirala Nagar, Behind Deep Hotel Tehsil And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.07.08 17:34:16 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A. for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 07/07/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the execution proceeding of Execution Case No. 6/2026 which was pending before the learned First Civil Judge (Senior Division), Korba and disposed of on its satisfaction vide order dated 08.06.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was the defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court where the original plaintiff Smt. Rampyari Murarka (since deceased) was the plaintiff, during pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff Smt. Rampyari Murarka has been died and in her place, her legal representative Mukesh Murarka (present respondent No.1(a)) has been substituted. A decree for declaration of title and vacant possession of the subject property was passed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 26.02.2026 in Civil Suit No. 11A/2017. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment and decree dated 26.02.2026 before the learned Principal District Judge, Korba bearing regular Civil Appeal No. A/8/2026 which is pending for its consideration. During pendency of the appeal, the respondent No.1(a) filed an execution application before 3 the learned trial Court on 28.04.2026 and in execution of the impugned judgment and decree, the vacant possession of the subject property was delivered to the respondent No.1(a) in execution of the impugned decree dated 26.02.2026 and the execution proceeding has been concluded after its satisfaction vide order dated 08.06.2026. He would further submit that the respondent No.1(a) has wrongfully obtained the vacant possession of the subject property without disclosing the family settlement arrived at between the parties dated 22.10.2013. He would further submit that the plaintiff has already deleted the relief column of para No. 14(c) from the plaint which was with respect to claim of vacant possession of the subject house yet, the learned trial Court has passed a decree to that respect and in pursuance thereof, it has been executed. Since the relief of possession was not there in the original plaint, no decree can be passed in favour of the plaintiff for vacant possession yet, the same has been passed and executed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, he is challenging the entire execution proceeding that vacant possession can not be delivered against the relief which has not been claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint, and therefore, the entire execution proceeding may be quashed and he may restored in the possession of the subject property. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner is the defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court and a bi parte decree has been passed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 26.02.2026 in Civil Suit No.11A/2017. The petitioner who is the 4 defendant No.1 had already challenged the judgment and decree before the learned Principal District Judge, Korba in Civil Appeal No. 8A/2026 which is pending for its consideration. Presently, he is challenging the entire execution proceeding initiated by the present respondent No.1(a) on the basis of judgment and decree dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned trial Court. From perusal of the order sheet dated 08.06.2026 annexed at page No.110 of the writ petition, it transpires that in execution of the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.02.2026, the vacant possession of the subject house has already been delivered to the respondent No.1(a) and the execution proceeding has been disposed of on its satisfaction. Since the decree has already been executed, the regular first appeal against the impugned judgment and decree is also pending before the learned Appellate Court and there is no interim order against effect and execution of the impugned decree, the entire execution proceeding can not be quashed in the present writ petition, however, the petitioner is at liberty to raise his grievance in the regular civil appeal which has been filed by him against the impugned judgment and decree which is pending before the learned Appellate Court. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any scope for interference in the present writ petition to quash the entire execution proceeding. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit