1 2026:CGHC:7201 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 145 of 2026 1 - Bharti Kesharwani W/o Ravindra Kesharwani Aged About 52 Years R/o Kelovihar Colony Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh C.G. 2 - Akansha Kesharwani D/o Ravindra Kesharwani Aged About 26 Years R/o Kelovihar Colony Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh C.G. 3 - Abhishek Kesharwani S/o Ravindra Kesharwani Aged About 24 Years R/o Kelovihar Colony Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ramchandra Kesharwani S/o Late Raghuveer Prasad Kesharwani Aged About 73 Years Laxmi Lauge, Gopi Takij K Samne Tehsil And District Raigarh C.G. 2 - Ravindra Kesharwani S/o Mahadev Kesharwani Aged About 50 Years Kelo Vihar Colony Raigarh C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Smt. Renu Kochar and Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, Advocates For Res. No. 1 : Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 09-02-2026 1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by 5th District Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh / Executing Court in Civil Execution Case No. 115 of 2017, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth, “CPC”) dated 24.10.2025 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is the wife of Ravindra Kumar Kesharwani. A decree dated 20.12.2016 was granted in favour of respondent No. 1/decree holder in Civil Suit No. 54-A of 2016, which is reproduced below :-
र आ
  रत  त । उर द  
  आ!र र "#$
 द अ द &
'त र &  र , र(त द  उ
"त द &#)*( र *  +**ल* -) .
द* । ऐ द- &0
र
12  रत  * त3
12 
द - द -) अद
*   " 4-ल 5 । 1- 6
त
* त 
 द27त 73ल 4#8(1 9& 36 र: 960 5 ; ट  ल
र ल र*5= द 
>!त आ:(
टत
* 5*  2- द द27त 4#8(1  ? 
तद   र  अ>!र । 3- *
12 द @र - +***ल -) 58,271/- A० अद र  "त 4-ल 5। 4- द  - अत 8 र
* त  । 5- उ4*C अ-अ द D**  र05 । 6- अ>! -) #" अर अ3 &
'त
*  र इ&   4 & , द* 5। 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1/decree holder put the decree for execution before the Executing Court. She 3 further submits that petitioner is also residing in the disputed house alongwith her husband. She next submits that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the CPC inter alia pleading that aforesaid decree is not executable one, thus, the execution case may be closed. She submits that though, the petitioner was not a party in the aforesaid civil suit, but challenging the legality and validity of the same, the petitioner has filed another civil suit. If it is found that decree was obtained by the petitioner illegally and in the meanwhile, if the decree is executed, then, it would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner. It is next submitted that there is no decree of handing over the possession of the subject property after demolishing the same, thus, rejection of the impugned order is bad in law and the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 /decree holder while opposing the submission made by counsel for the petitioner would submit that decree is passed against the husband of the petitioner in respect of the subject property, which has been occupied by the petitioner and her husband. He submits that while rejecting the application under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the petitioner, learned Executing Court has granted 15 days' time to the judgment debtor to vacate the suit premises, otherwise, vacant possession of the subject property was given to respondent No. 1/defendant after demolishing the same. He submits that the respondent No. 1 /decree holder is aged about 85 years and even after passing the judgment & decree in the year 2017, he is not able to enjoy the fruits of the decree, as such, the learned Executing Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the CPC, which does not call for any interference in the instant petition. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. First submission of Ms. Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner has filed civil suit for declaring the judgment & decree dated 20.12.2016 passed in Civil Suit A/54/2016 as null & void. This Court is not impressed with this submission of petitioner's counsel and cannot accept that till the civil suit is decided, the execution of the decree dated 20.12.2016 may be stayed. 7. Second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned decree does not speak about demolition of the house. This submission is liable to be dismissed, as learned Executing Court while dismissing the application so filed by the petitioner has categorically stated that judgment debtor should vacate the premises within 15 days after demolishing the same, else, the subject premises will be demolished by the Court and vacant possession of same would be given to the decree holder. Thus, it cannot be said that option was not given to the petitioner/judgment debtor to vacate the subject premises. The arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner that Executing Court went beyond the decree is also not acceptable because the decree of possession is always treated as vacant possession of the subject premises. 8. Moreover, the execution case was filed in the year 2017, and in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Periyammal (Dead through. Lrs.) vs. Rajamani and another 1 in which, it has been held that the Executing Court are supposed to conclude the execution proceedings within a period of six months from the date of passing of the judgment & decree passed by the concerned trial Court. 1 Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025, decided on 6th March, 2025, 5 9. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforecited case, I am not inclined to entertain this petition, hence, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). 10. Pending interlocutor applications, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.10 18:39:26 +0530