1 CGHC010348212026 2026:CGHC:40295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1180 of 2026 1 - Sodhu Ram (Dead) Through Legal Representative Nil 1.1 - A. Tulsi Dewangan S/o Late Shri Sodhu Ram, Aged About 62 Years R/o Champa, Hanuman Chowk, Dewangan Para, Rani Road, Champa, Tah. Champa, Dist-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 1.2 - B.Chandrika @ Tarachand Dewangan S/o Late Shri Sodhu Ram, Aged About 60 Years R/o Champa, Hanuman Chowk, Dewangan Para, Rani Road, Champa, Tah. Champa, Dist-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 1.3 - C. Rajan Dewangan S/o Late Sodhu Ram Aged About 61 Years R/o Champa, Hanuman Chowk, Dewangan Para, Rani Road, Champa, Tah. Champa, Dist-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 1.4 - D. Mangalchand Dewangan, S/o Late Sodhu Ram, Aged About 58 Years R/o Champa, Hanuman Chowk, Dewangan Para, Rani Road, Champa, Tah. Champa, Dist-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 1.5 - E. Indra Bai, D/o Late Shri Sodhu Ram, Aged About 62 Years R/o Champa, Hanuman Chowk, Dewangan Para, Rani Road, Champa, Tah. Champa, Dist-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 1.6 - F. Smt. Kamla Bai Dewangan, D/o Late Shri Sodhu Ram, W/o Dhaneswar Dewangan Aged About 52 Years R/o Vill -Choriya, Sahu Mohalla, Choriya, Tah. Champa, Dist -Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.17 18:18:51 +0530 2 1.7 - G. Smt. Vimla Bai S/o Late Shri Sodhu Ram, W/o Mahadev Dewangan, R/o Vill -Sothi, Tah. Champa, Dist -Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Narayan Prasad S/o Dwarpal Dewangan Aged About 75 Years R/o Champa, Hanuman Chowk, Dewangan Para, Rani Road, Champa, Tah, Chama, Dist -Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) 2 - Horilal Dewangan, S/o Dwarpal Dewangan, Aged About 65 Years Presently R/o In Front Of New Collge Building, Champa, Tah. Champa, Dist -Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) 3 - Kamalchan Dewangan, S/o Late Shri Dwarpal Dewangan (Now Dead) Through Legal Representative Nil 3.1 - A. Sushila Bai, W/o Late Shri Kamalchand Dewangan, Aged About 55 Years R/o Near Manjhali Talab, Beside Railway Line, Champa, Dist-Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 3.2 - B. Pappu, S/o Late Shri Kamalchand, Aged About 35 Years R/o Near Manjhali Talab, Beside Railway Line, Champa, Dist-Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) 3.3 - C. Bali, S/o Late Shri Kamalchand Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Near Manjhali Talab, Beside Railway Line, Champa, Dist-Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 3.4 - D Ku. Puja, D/o Late Shri Kamalchan Dewangan Aged About 20 Years R/o Near Manjhali Talab, Beside Railway Line, Champa, Dist-Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 4 - Rajni Bai, D/o Late Shri Dwarpal Dewangan, W/o Kaushal Prasad Dewangan, Aged About 50 Years R/o Vill -Choriya, Tah. Champa, Dist - Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Radha Bai, D/o Late Shri Sodhu Ram,w/o Late Shri Vishram Dewangan, Aged About 73 Years R/o Baigapara, Behind Police Station 3 Sakti, Tah Sakti, Now Dist -Sakti (C.G.) 6 - Shakun Bai, D/o Late Shri Sodhu Ramw/o Shri Domal Prasad Dewangan, Aged About 70 Years R/o Vill- Suretha, Tah And Dist- Mungeli (C.G.) 7 - Savitri Bai Dewangan D/o Late Shri Sodhu Ram, W/o Shri Beniram Dewangan, Aged About 68 Years R/o Vill- Baloda, Near Halwai Chowk, Baloda, Tah. Baloda, Dist -Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) (Cause Title As Per Annexure P-11) Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board 15/09/2026 Heard. 1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 30.07.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, in Execution Case No. 72-A/1996, whereby the learned Executing Court issued possession warrant in execution of the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2001, passed in civil suit No. 72-A/1996. The petitioners have claimed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the Courts below. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of CERTIORARI quashing 4 the order dated 30.07.2026 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division Champa, Dist- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Execution Civil Suit No. 72-A/1996 (Annexure P-1). 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, earlier the petitioners had challenged the order dated 24.06.2026 passed by learned Executing Court, in Execution Case No. 5/2012 (Execution Case No. 72-A/1996), which was dismissed by this Court on 17.07.2026, in WP(227) No. 846 of 2026, thereafter a report was submitted by the Tehsildar, Champa on 30.07.2026 before the learned Executing Court stating therein that on the spot there is no Abadi Land found as per the map, which is the part of the decree for its execution and there is difference in the map shown in the decree as well as on the spot and therefore, without ascertaining the exact location and identification of the disputed land, the possession warrant cannot be issued. Yet the learned Executing Court issued possession warrant for execution of the decree dated 28.04.2001. He would refer the report dated 30.07.2026 (Annexure P/10), submitted by the Tehsildar, Champa to the learned Executing Court. Since, the disputed land as per the map annexed with the decree is not available on the spot, the decree become inexecutable and the possession warrant cannot be issued for the same, therefore, the impugned order dated 30.07.2026 may be set aside. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5 4. From perusal of the order dated 17.07.2026 passed by this Court in WP(227) No. 846 of 2026, it transpires that the substantial objection raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition with regard to the identity of the subject land and execution of the decree has already been raised by the petitioners and considered by this Court and the same issue again raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition. Though the present issue raised by the petitioners is based on the report dated 30.07.2026 (Annexure P/10) submitted by the Tehsildar, Champa, but the issue involved in the execution case appears to be one and the same i.e. the identification of the subject land. The said issue has already been considered in the said WP(227) No. 846 of 2026. It is necessary here to take note of the order dated 17.07.2026 passed in WP(227) No. 846 of 2026:- “4. The petitioner could not dispute the fact that the decree for possession of the suit property, as shown in the plaint map, has been passed against the defendants vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2001 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 72-A/1996. The first Appeal No. 5-A/2004 has also been dismissed by the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.08.2004, and then the Second Appeal No. 446/2004 has also been dismissed by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2007, and thus the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2001 attains its finality. The plaintiff's case before the learned trial court was that the subject property of the plaint map ABCDEF part is the Abadi land which was purchased by all three brothers in the year 1948 and a memorandum of partition was executed on 16.03.1954. 6 Accordingly, the parties are in possession of their respective share of the property. The subject house was abundant since 2024-2025 years back and then the defendant No. 1 tried to possess the same, and a dispute arose between the parties, and a suit has been filed. The defence of the defendants was that the plaint map annexed by the plaintiff is incorrect as the 0.02 acres of land of Khasra Nos. 839 and 840 of the defendants also come under the ABCDEF part of the map annexed to the plaint, and the said land belongs to the defendant. It was the case of the defendant before the learned trial Court that, their part of the land was also included in the suit land, and an incorrect map had been presented by the plaintiff in the suit. 5. The learned trial Court, after considering the pleadings of the respective parties, has framed 13 issues and after providing opportunity to lead evidence with respect to their pleadings and after conclusion of the trial, decided the suit by allowing the claim of the plaintiffs for delivery of possession of the subject property. Despite the clear defence of the defendants, the learned trial Court considered that the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of ABCDEF part of the property shown in the plaint map. The said judgment and decree have been upheld up to the High Court. 6. In the case of "Brakewel Automotive Components (India) (P) Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan", 2017 (5) SCC 371, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- "20. It is no longer res integra that an executing court can neither travel behind the decree nor sit in appeal over the same 7 or pass any order jeopardising the rights of the parties thereunder. It is only in the limited cases where the decree is by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction or is a nullity that the same is rendered non est and is thus unexecutable. An erroneous decree cannot be equalled with one which is a nullity. There are no intervening developments as well to render the decree unexecutable. 21. As it is, Section 47 of the Code mandates determination by an executing court, questions arising between the parties or their representatives relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and does not contemplate any adjudication beyond the same. A decree of court of law being sacrosanct in nature, the execution thereof ought not to be thwarted on mere asking and on untenable and purported grounds having no bearing on the validity or the executability thereof. 22. Judicial precedents to the effect that the purview of scrutiny under Section 47 of the Code qua a decree is limited to objections to its executability on the ground of jurisdictional infirmity or voidness are plethoric. This Court, amongst others in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman, in essence enunciated that only a decree which is a nullity can be the subject- matter of objection under Section 47 of the Code and not one which is erroneous either in law or on facts. The following extract 8 from this decision seems apt: (SCC pp. 672-73, paras 6-7)" "6. A court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree: between the parties or their representatives it must take the decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. Until it is set aside by an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous is still binding between the parties. 7. When a decree which is a nullity, for instance, where it is passed without bringing the legal representative on the record of a person who was dead at the date of the decree, or against a ruling prince without a certificate, is sought to be executed an objection in that behalf may be raised in a proceeding for execution. Again, when the decree is made by a court which has no inherent jurisdiction to make it, objection as to its validity may be raised in an execution proceeding if the objection appears on the face of the record: where the objection as to the jurisdiction of the court to pass the decree does not appear on the face of the record and requires examination of the questions raised and decided at the trial or which could have been but have not been raised, the executing court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an objection as to the validity of the decree even on the ground of absence of jurisdiction." 9 7. When the judgment and decree have been passed by the learned trial Court and upheld up to the High Court with respect to the delivery of possession of ABCDEF part shown in the plaint map, the decree is required to be executed in its terms for delivery of possession of the property shown in the plaint map. The petitioners tried to demonstrate from the document Annexure P/10 that ABCDEF part of the subject property is not in existence in its four corners on the spot, and therefore, the decree could not be executed, but considering the report submitted by the Revenue Authorities, the learned Executing Court passed an order on 20.04.2026 that before proceeding further, the subject property should be ascertained first and then only proceed for execution. The suit was filed in the year 1999, and the report was submitted by the Revenue Authorities in the year 2026. In the long gap of 27 years, the four corners of the subject land might have some discrepancy, but the decree is still in force for possession of the subject property of ABCDEF part of the plaint map. 8. It is well settled that an executing Court is bound to execute the decree as it stands and cannot travel beyond its terms or reopen issues which have already attained finality in the original proceedings. The executing Court is competent to interpret the decree only to the extent necessary for its implementation, but it cannot question its correctness, modify its scope or adjudicate afresh upon matters that were or could have been decided by the trial Court. In the present case, the plea now raised by the petitioners that the plaint map is incorrect, that the suit property is not identifiable on the spot, or that part of their land 10 has been wrongly included in the ABCDEF portion of the map, was not a new issue arising during execution. The record reveals that the defendants had specifically taken the same defence before the trial Court, contending that the plaint map incorrectly included a portion of their land comprised in Khasra Nos. 839 and 840. The said objection was considered during the trial, and despite such defence, the suit for possession of the ABCDEF portion shown in the plaint map was decreed. The decree has thereafter been affirmed in the first appeal as well as the second appeal and has thus attained finality. Once the identity of the suit property, as described in the decree read with the plaint map, has been finally adjudicated, the same issue cannot be permitted to be reagitated under the guise of an objection in execution. The executing Court has rightly confined itself to implementing the decree and, after obtaining the report of the Revenue Authorities for facilitating execution, rejected the objection. Merely because, after a lapse of several years, some variation is alleged on the spot regarding the physical features or boundaries of the property, the decree does not become inexecutable, particularly when its identity has already been conclusively determined by the competent civil court. 9. From the overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents annexed with the petition, I do not find any palpable infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court, which warrants interference in the present writ petition.” 11 5. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 72-A/1996, having been affirmed in appeal and second appeal, has attained finality and continues to remain operative. The objection raised by the petitioners regarding the identity and identification of the subject property, including the alleged discrepancy between the plaint map and the physical features existing at the spot, had already been considered in the earlier proceedings and cannot be permitted to be reagitated in the present petition. The subsequent report of the Tehsildar dated 30.07.2026 does not render the decree inexecutable, nor does it disclose any jurisdictional infirmity or nullity in the decree. The learned Executing Court, while proceeding to execute the decree in terms thereof, has not travelled beyond the scope of the decree. 6. Consequently, this Court does not find any palpable infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 30.07.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Champa, District Janjgir- Champa, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved