.\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227)N0. 4489/2011 PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENT Bhagwati Prasad, S/o Kartik Ram Sahu, aged about 46 years, Occup. Agriculturist, R/o Village Parsapali, TahsilKharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). Samrriukh Prasad Pandey, S/6 Late Padmakar Pandey, aged about 50 years, occup. Agriculturist, R/o village Parsapali, Tahsil-Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE ^ONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA. • (SB :Hon'ble E ir. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present::- Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent not noticed. , 2. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 10/08/2011) By this petition under Article 227 pf the Constitution of India petitioner has cha'-lenged the legality and propriefy Qf the order dated 19/7/2011 passed.by Civil Judge Class-II;Khargiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) in civil execution case No.56-A/2007wherebyon the'ground of disobedience decree for permanent ' inj'uaetion Court below has ordered civil prison for one month to. the petitioner. Shri Govind'Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner is heard. ^earned counsel for the petitipner submits that deeree relatingtoKh.No. 84/2 was granted .in favour of the respondent which was affirmed in appeal, • •thereafter as per order impugned and application filed oh behalf of the .respondent, petitioner is causing disturbance in pQSsession of the respondent in Kh. No.84/'2'has been divided and-new Kb.No. 84/22 has been mentioried in revenue record. Present petitioner is disturbing the possession of Kh. No. 84/22 therefore: Court below has ordered for civil prison to the petitioner'but respondent has not'proved the fact that Kh. No, 84/2 was divided in two parts and new Kh. N6. 84/22. *'/ 'Wi'WSS^SSSSS':^^!^: ;%^^32:.^3^"«s)^^^ SSfSS TI -&-- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that unless same is established the order passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) is illegal. 5. Copy of the appellate deeree, copy of Panchnama by Patwari, copy of the application filed on behalf of the respondent for execution of decree in terms of0rder21 Rule 32 ofthe Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and-copy of the order perused. • . ' ' 6. BefQre passing coercive order for sending the person in civil prison by curtailing his liberty Courts are required tp ensyre the fact thatjudgment tebtor has willfully disobeyed and disobeying the decree granted in favour of the decree holder. Aforesaid application and documents clearly reveal that there is a dispute relating to khasra number of the land, in these cireumstances before passing such order decree holder was under obligation to establish the fact that present petitioner is disturbing the possession and disobeying the grant of injunction relating to the land of decree holder and decree has been passed relating to the afoi'Ssaid land. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not fmd any necessity for observance of procedural law it would be futile exercise. Consequently, Order impugned is hereby quashed. Case is remanded back to the Ciwil Judge.Class-II, Khdrsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.). Civil Judge Class-II, Kharsiya, Disfrict Raigarh (C.G.) shall affer -oviding an opportunity of hearing to the parties relating'to identification of - the land in dispufe in. consequence with fhe' decree passed- by it, pass the order afresh. Petitioner is direcfed to remain present befo're' the Court below on 26/8/2011,^ . ! ' ~- . ' . • No order as.to costs. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge l^- iBl..BfiP':5AffMBIfcfi®6 •J!'vv"-''w^^^!^^^l^^^^^^ss^^^^^^^^^^