^. 'BLE MGH COURT OF CHBATTISG^ lyfilE t-Si] 's^' AT BILASPUR WJ. ( C ) -L4-& /2007S.B. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER: Defendant\ Judgement- Debtor Rafh Ram K.esharwaau S\o Madav Prasad Kesharwani, aged about 50 years Cultivator, R\o Sukulpara, Tahasil Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : /tJBilaspur- Raipur Chetriya GraminBank, ^•^^:. o ?,^'""^'i't"1-;'^'^.!0-^"" ?^^^^" *»' ,^:-^" """^-s? /i?^-^ Sf,,^^ '/ •s."" ""?;';?.,.%, -' ^.S?J,' 'f-±\ ~ ' "^ ^ ^ 1%X \..--'^'// '"^•/'N^—:^8''^ ^"•ftfi^sl^^ Branch: Rahaud, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ^'My'f'hrough Advocate Shri Rajesh Verma, Advocate, District Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) PlaiatifiV Deeree- Holder ^SrRamesh Kesharwani S\o Madav Prasad Kesharwani, Aged about 40 years, Cultivator, R\o Sukulpara, Kharaud, Tahasil Pamgarh, Distnct Janjgir- Champa(C.G.) S-'Mabesh Keasharwam S\o S\o Madav Prasad Kesharwani, (Died on 1\12\2006, L.Rs. not teaight on record by D.H. in Executiorrcase) ^. Bal Ram Nomya S\o Late Shri Hari SbaiAar ~ Noniya, R\o Sukulpara, Kharaud, Tahasil Pamgarh, DistrictJaajgir- Champa(C.G.) -Tff'^ ^4- --< Advocate Shri Harsha Banafer, Adyocate, District Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) _5. Paras Ram S\o Shebha Ram Kesharwani R\o Siikulpara, Kharayd, Tahasil Pamgarh, District Jarygir- Champa( C.G-) Through Advocate Shri Harsha Banafer Advocate, District Court, Bilaspiu- (C.G.) ^--6. Gorelal S\o Tirath Dewangan, Retd. Professor Hal Mukam Through Govt. Science College, Durg(CG.) Through Adyocate Shri Harsha Banafer, Adyocate, DistrictCourt, Bilaspur(C.G-) f^.7-. Bhure Lal Dewangan S\o Tirath Ram Dewangaa R\o Sukulpara, Kharaud, Tahasil Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa(C.G.) Through Advocate Shri Harsha Baaafer, Advocate, District Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) 'S. Ram Krishna Dewangan S\o Tirath Ram Dewangan, Teacher, Lala Lajpat Rai School, Khaparganj, Bilaspur (C.G.) Through Advocate Shri Harsha Banafer, Advocate, District Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) Defendants\ Judgment- Debtors CONSTITUTION OF BNDIA The Petitioner above named respectfijlly submits as under i » XI-HC-78 *< 1*1(11 a»»rra> 3^T '^WMf, 8Tflu'IS, RlflKHy .^:f;.<,c<>./^%. ^FT 2009 3lici<'i 4ach (y?3sl<«<T) 3n^?TqirR^ aw^i^ish^i* TOiTWHf^rsn^T Wffa^T WR?ffif tec& rfsTRTC ^iSTf^iTsn^r 5.2.2007 Shri Yashwant Tiwari, leai This petition has been whom and four others a joint dei passed on 7th August 1998 in Ci Judge, Bilaspur. The petitioner passed in execution proceeding appiication under Order 21 Rule attachment of the joint famiiy was rejected and steps for comi were jnitiated. Learned counsel for th< proceeding is withouf jurisdicti Additional District Judge, Bilasp] the 6 Additional District Judgi made o'/er to the executing Couj that prior to initiating proceedij imprisonment, his movable prop| without opting for attachment of| i|ned counsel for the petitioner. [|>referred by a judgment debtor against tree for a sum of Rs. 1,37.444i- has been 'lril Suit No. 9-B/97 by 6"' Additiona! District |s aggrieved by the order dated 6.12.2006 against the above persons whereby the 143 read with Section 151 ofthe C.P.C. for prcjperty for recovery of the decretat amount, itnitting the petitioner to civil imprisonment petitioner submits that the execution |on as it has been initiated by the 1 ir though the decree has been passed by s, Bilaspur and the same has not been t. The further objection ofthe petitioner is igs for committing the petitioner to civil irty was ordered to be attached, however, the movable property of the petitioner, the XI-HC-78 STI^T^Tf^TN; (PIT3I1^Tsti*li°b S^ -^WW^, ®Tfl«'IS,Rlclltfy rt-^ v^.:f.~.c.t-.\.l^. N1*4^1 sk*41<*> •'•''•'••^•'•'••'•'••"••••-^r 2005 3<l^s'l Mfltb (li,<:<i^cl<4,liT) wirwHfer311^1 Court below directed proceeding without there being any valid reas have heard learned coun: b under Order 21 Rule 37 of the C.P.C. of the petitioner regarding jurisdiction of the petitioner had participated in the afiy objection, therefore, at this stage he cannot be permitted to raise this (^bjection for the first time. So far as the first objectior( the executing Court is concern^d execution proceedinas wrthout apy The next question is whe^her iliegaiity in initiating proceedings committing the petitioner to civil ii|nprisonment From perusat of the ordei| that on 6.9.2006 rep!y to applic^ition Section 55 of the C.P.C. was filfe counsel for the petitioner that he application. !n reply, it was atso| prepared to deposit his share of| the aforesaid circumstances, it 'shiiIfi'TI-i tfi*«iTfftei^'<Riui< ^sTl^rsn^r lon. .el for the petitioner. |her the Court be!ow has committed any Under Order 21 Rule 37 of the C.P.C. for sheets annexed with the petition, 1 find under Order 21 Rule 37 read with id and on that date it was submitted by )nay be given time to argue on the above |stated that the judgment debtor No. 1 is Ithe decretai amount in the Court and in directed that only after the amount is wtas XI-HC-78 sn^T^Tf^iN; craTsn^rstiMicti ^' ///< ^' *11*1WI shHlch 35T"TPTRPT, Wrfl^'Ko, Rlctltiy ^:f;^../^.... ^200^ Sii^i ^afi (l4?l'd61^) ?:RtTWtriNw^T deposited, application under decided. Subsequent to thi attachment of the land jointly which was refused by the exec^t proposed for attachment is a d[ attached. (Prder 21 Rule 37 of the C.P.C. wiil be a|t it appears that the petitioner offered (ecorded in the narne of several persons ting Court on fhe ground that the property [sputed property and the same cannot be Considering the various further considering the condui| opinion that there is no illegafitil injustice or failure of justice to this Court in the exercise of jij Consfitution of India. The admission stage itself and is hej «hi<it<-i<n-<*ii*i(iTffte^<F3]wi< ii-nf^'q'an^T jsrders passed by the executing Court and t;t of the petitioner, this Court is of the in fhe impugned order occasioning grave ]:he parties, which calls for interference by Irisdiction vested under Article 227 of the betition is isabie to be dismissed af the dismissed. --——---- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.