1 CGHC010371972026 2026:CGHC:42650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1275 of 2026 1 - Smt. Salma Sheikh(Salma Rizvi) W/o- Late Shri Ashad Rizvi, Aged About 68 Years Occupation -Advocacy, R/o Mohalla -Night Chowk, Bhatti Road, Kedarpur Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. -Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Shama Rizvi D/o -Late Shri Ashad Rizvi Aged About 27 Years Occupation -Advocacy, R/o Mohalla -Night Chowk, Bhatti Road, Kedarpur Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. -Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Ali Akhtar Rizvi S/o -Shri A.M. Rizvi, Aged About 57 Years Occupation - Advocacy, R/o Rawat Colony, Beside Aditya Car Shrinagar Manendragarh Road Ambikapur, Distt -Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Nisar Ahamad S/o Mohammad Isha, Aged About 75 Years Occupation - Retired Govt. Servant, R/o -Mohalla-Nawapara, P.S. And Tahsil -Surajpur, Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.) At Present R/o -H I G D.-36 Aakash Type, Abhilasha Parisaqr, Beside New Bus Stand, Tifra, Bilaspur, Distt. -Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Mushtaq Ahmad S/o -Shri Mohammad Isha, Aged About 69 Years R/o Mohalla- Nawapara, P.S. And Tahsil -Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Irshad Ahmad ( Since Died) Nil 3.1 - Smt. Safroon Begam, W/o Late Shri Irshad Ahmad, Aged About 59 Years R/o Mohalla- Nawapara, P.S. And Tahsil -Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 3.2 - Sameer Ahmad, S/o - Shri Irshad Ahmad, Aged About 29 Years R/o Mohalla- Nawapara, P.S. And Tahsil -Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 3.3 - Eina Irshad D/o - Late Shri Irshad Ahmad, Aged About 27 Years R/o Mohalla- Nawapara, P.S. And Tahsil -Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Sakeel Ahmad S/o Late Shri Mohammad Isha, Aged About 60 Years R/o Mohalla- Nawapara, P.S. And Tahsil -Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) At Present House No.-S1 / A-24 A Vasundra Vihar, Godhanpur Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.10.01 11:57:27 +0530 2 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L. for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 30/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 29.07.2026 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Execution Case No. 178/2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected and possession warrant has been issued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners were the defendants No.1 to 3 before the learned trial Court where the respondents No.1 to 4 had prosecuted a suit for declaration of title and vacant possession of the subject house situated at Khasra No. 1945/12, which is the part of the land of Khasra No. 1945/1 area 0.07 Acre and a house situated over it and also for mesne profit and arrears of rent. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 21.07.2016, which has been affirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and 3 decree dated 13.11.2025 passed in First Appeal No.259/2016 and the said judgment and decree has been further affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would further submit that in an execution proceedings, instead of executing the decree with respect to 0.07 Acre of land and a house situated over it, the decree holder is trying to obtain the possession of the entire piece of land of Khasra No. 1945/1, therefore, the demarcation is necessary to identify the subject property under the decree. The learned Executing Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners holding that there was no objection raised by the defendants during the pendency of the suit and there is no necessity to conduct demarcation to obtain demarcation report as there is no issue involved in the case with respect to identification of the subject property. He would further submit that the petitioners are not opposing the delivery of possession with respect to 0.07 Acre of land and a house situated over it, but the decree holder can not take possession of excess property under the garb of execution of the decree, therefore, the demarcation is required before execution of the decree, yet their application has been rejected. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the learned Executing Court may be directed to demarcate the subject property then only proceed with the execution proceeding. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. In the present case, the dispute raised by the petitioners in an execution proceedings that the decree holder is trying to get the possession of the subject property more than the decreed part of 4 subject property that is 0.07 Acre of land as well as a house situated over it. The learned trial Court has observed in its order that there is clear four corners mentioned in the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and there is no question of any identification of the dispute with respect to the subject property by appointing a Commissioner. 6. From perusal of the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.07.2016, in para 3 of the judgment, the four corners of the subject property has been mentioned and according to which the land and house of Bhagwan Kushwaha and Shivnarayan Jaiswal in the eastern side, municipal road in the western side, land of Ayodhya Jaiswal in the northern side and house of Jagdish Daan in the southern side. The measurement of the land was also given in the said paragraph of the judgment. The said judgment and decree has been affirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the identification of the subject property has not been disturbed by any of the order against the said judgment and decree and thus, the identification of the subject property stands established, for which there is no requirement of any demarcation again, as has been claimed by the petitioners. 7. After having gone through the entire material available in the petition, I do not find any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners by the learned Executing Court, the writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit