[2026:RJ-JP:24021] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4746/2026 URN: CW / 10460U / 2026 1. Babulal S/o Devi Sahai, (Deceased), Through Legal Representatives 1/1. Smt. Lalita Devi W/o Late Shri Babulal, Aged About 73 Years, Resident Of Ward No.5, Khetri, Tehsil Khetri, Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj. 1/2. Fakir Chand S/o Late Shri Babulal, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Ward No.5, Khetri, Tehsil Khetri, Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj. 1/3. Santosh Kumar S/o Late Shri Babulal, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Ward No.5, Khetri, Tehsil Khetri, Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj. ----Petitioners Versus Raghunath Goshala, Khetri Tehsil Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj. Through Its Chairman (Ex-Chairman), Kailash Chand Sharma S/ o Shri Ramnarayan Sharma Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of Ward No.14, Khetri, Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj, At Present Chairman Nagarman Saini S/o Shri Chunni Lal Saini, Aged About 82 Years, Resident Of Ward No.5, Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Swati Sharma for Mr. Subhash Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 30/06/2026 1. Under challenge is the order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the Civil Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, dismissing the objections filed by petitioners–judgment debtors under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), during the course of Execution Petition No. 06/2020. 2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the record. 3. The facts of present case, in nutshell, are that: [2026:RJ-JP:24021] (2 of 6) [CW-4746/2026] 3.1 The subject property belongs to Raghunath Goshala and was in the tenancy of one Sh. Babulal for a period of 15 years with effect from the year 1975. After expiry of the said term, the tenancy was terminated by serving a statutory notice, and a Civil Suit No.20/2015 for eviction and recovery of due rent/ mesne profits was filed by and on behalf of Raghunath Goshala. The suit was contested by Sh. Babulal. Finally, the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 23.12.2017. The following decree was passed against Sh. Babulal:- “,rn}kjk oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g okn ckcr csn[kyh fo:) izfroknh fMØh fd;k tkdj izfroknh dks vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd og bl fu.kZ; dh fnukad ls 04 ekg ds Hkhrj okni= dh en la[;k 04 esa of.kZr fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj dks [kkyh dj okLrfod dCtk oknh dks laHkyk nsosA cdk;k fdjk;s ds laca/k esa oknh dk okn vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA oknh okn izLrqfr dh fnukad ls dCtk izkfIr dh fnukad rd vr% dkfyu ykHk ds :i esa jkf’k 1640@& :i;s izfrekl izfr nl o"kZ ckn rhu xq.kk c<ksRrjh ds lkFk ¼vkxkeh c<ksRrjh o"kZ 2020 esa 540 dh rhu xq.kk 1620@& :i;s mlds ckn o"kZ 2030 esa 1620 dk rhu xq.kk] blh izdkj vkxsa½ Hkh izkIr djus dk gdnkj gksxkA ;fn okn izLrqfr ds ckn izfroknh dh vksj ls dksbZ jkf’k oknh dks vnk dh xbZ gS rks nLrkosth lcwr izLrqr djus ij mDr jkf’k lek;kstu ;ksX; gksxhA izfroknh }kjk fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj ij tks Hkh fuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS og bl fuekZ.k dks vius [kpsZ ij gVkus dk vf/kdkjh gksxk c’ksZr og fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj dks mlh fLFkfr esa NksM+ ns ftl fLFkfr esa mls izkIr fd;k FkkA mDr fuekZ.k fu.kZ; dh fnukad ls pkj ekg esa gVkuk gksxkA okn [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk viuk ogu djsaxsaA” 3.2 Sh. Babulal challenged the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2017 by filing a regular civil first appeal. During course of the appeal, Sh. Babulal passed away, hence, in his place, his legal representatives, i.e., the present petitioners, sought their substitution to continue the appeal. The present petitioners were allowed to be substituted, and the appeal was finally dismissed on merits vide judgment dated 18.07.2020. Consequently, the decree of eviction and arrears of rent was affirmed. 3.3 Present petitioners, being the legal representatives of original defendant–judgment debtor, Sh. Babulal (now deceased), preferred S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 258/2020. In the second [2026:RJ-JP:24021] (3 of 6) [CW-4746/2026] appeal, petitioners sought to rely upon certain additional documents to show that, after the decree, due rent and future rent up to the year 2037, totaling Rs.2,11,680/-, has been paid in four installments to the then President of the Gaushala, namely Sh. Nagar Mal Saini, and, therefore, a new tenancy has come into existence. These documents were not found to be genuine or relevant to the issue involved and, accordingly, were not taken on record. Finally, the second appeal was dismissed on merits by the High Court, vide judgment dated 26.05.2025. 3.4 Respondent–decree holder initiated execution proceedings. During the execution proceedings, petitioners filed objections under Section 47 of the CPC, placing reliance on the same additional documents which were sought to be placed on record before this Court during the course of second appeal, in order to show that the decree of eviction has become inexecutable on account of establishment of a fresh tenancy between the parties. The objections were solely based on the said additional documents to show that the due rent and future rent up to the year 2037 has been paid to and received by the then President of the Gaushala. 3.5 It appears that the President of the Gaushala, immediately upon coming to know the plea sought to be taken by petitioners, lodged FIR No. 236/2022 at Police Station Khetri, Jhunjhunu, alleging that petitioners prepared forged documents bearing false and fabricated signatures. The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 193, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC, and the investigation therein is still pending. 3.6 The objections under Section 47 of the CPC were contested by the decree holder by filing a reply. The factum of payment of [2026:RJ-JP:24021] (4 of 6) [CW-4746/2026] future rent up to the year 2037 was emphatically denied, and it was also disputed that any fresh tenancy had been created. The additional documents were alleged to be false and fabricated. 3.7 Learned Executing Court, having considered the entire factual matrix, has dismissed the objections vide order impugned, whereagainst instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Submission of counsel for petitioners is that the additional documents, prima facie, go to show that rent up to the year 2037 was paid to the then President, namely, Sh. Nagar Mal Saini, and the FSL report regarding the genuineness of these additional documents, has not yet been received. Hence, at this stage, petitioners have a prima facie case for not proceeding with the execution of the eviction decree. 5. Counsel appearing for the respondent–decree holder has opposed the submission of counsel for petitioners, and states that the decree of eviction has attained finality and deserves to be executed in accordance with law. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. Learned Executing Court, in the order impugned, has considered the genuineness of the additional documents. It has been observed that the additional documents are neither attested by a Notary Public nor petitioners have produced any witness or any other evidence to prove the execution of the documents. The documents, through which payment of rent up to the year 2037 in four installments is stated to have been made, have been categorically denied by the President of the Gaushala, rather an FIR for creating false and fabricated documents has been lodged, which is under investigation. The plea sought to be taken by [2026:RJ-JP:24021] (5 of 6) [CW-4746/2026] petitioners for establishment of a fresh tenancy has been found to be vague. Reference to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 2 CPC has also been made. The findings recorded by the Executing Court in the impugned order are based on due application of judicial mind and appreciation of the factual matrix. In addition, the Executing Court has opined that, considering the conspectus of events and the manner in which petitioners have sought to rely upon the additional documents, the same does not inspire confidence and goes to show that the documents are prima facie false. It has been noticed that the decree of eviction was passed way back on 23.12.2017 and attained finality up to the High Court. The execution petition was filed on 14.09.2020. The additional documents pertain to the year 2021 and have been placed on record during the course of execution proceedings in the year 2022. 8. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not akin to appellate or revisional jurisdiction and is limited to examine the perversity in the order or jurisdictional error or the order suffers from patent illegality or vice of arbitrariness, which leads to injustice. The fundamental object and purpose of exercising supervisory jurisdiction by the High Court is to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds and parameters of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [2001 (8) SCC 97], while explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, held as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:24021] (6 of 6) [CW-4746/2026] “The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. The reasons assigned by the Executing Court in the impugned order for dismissing the objections filed by petitioners under Section 47 of the CPC, are based on an appreciation of the contextual factual matrix and cannot be said to be suffered from any perversity, jurisdictional error, or transgression of the parameters of law. 10. In such view of the matter, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 12. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin Sharma/ 39