\T- c L/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (ART. 2271 /2010 /^ ^/\ ,M PETITIONER (JUDGMENT DEBTOR) ^ / ~S 7 5?' of •&" ^.-^> ^- ^' ^* RESPONDENT (DECREE HOLDER) c' ^ /-i \LSS& • ) S.S. ^Bt^jt,) t ,^\ ^~^-^7S ^.s^ ^^ ^T^s> LATE ARJUN DAS (DECEASED). NANDLAL (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE), S/o ARJUNDAS, R/o KARTA, JOINT HlNDU FAMILY BUSINESS, AMUL RAI GENBRAL AND KlRANA MERCHANT, GANDHI CHOWK, RAJNANDGAON, TAHSIL AND DlSTRICT RAJNADGAON (C.G.) Versus PRAKASH CHAND KANKARIA, S/0 PlR CHAND KANKARIA, A/A 53 YBARS, R/0 KAMTHI LlNE, RAJNADGAON, TAHSIL AND DlSTRICT RAJNANDGAON (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA FORISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OFCERTIORARLMANDAMUS, OR ANY OTHER SUITABLEWRIT. BMiBSIfCliKBa :» S.B: Horfl^lSlulAPriasKanflCumar^^ PETITIONER Writ Petitidn(227) N0.^340010 : LateAi^iinD^(Decea;w ,:; •.,; ,i(l^gaI,iRepi^entative)J.''.'': ..•:^^ /.' :• •1:'.'- RESPONDENT VersuS' • . :'1; PrakashC'handKankaria Appearariee::':. •: !: .: ,^ :. ' •1 :.,•:. •.•::.:.:''.: .•,:'..::| • .1:: ShriiAnumehShrivastava,eounselfbrthepetitioner. /a':..;.;;l/:'::.^ WMTPfiITTION^JNa)ER^^A^^ : CONSTlTKFlONOF'fl'SIMA,.:' ,':„;••;- ORALORDER ,(2^H.2610):^,::.:';'::;)/:\''..''' ,:,• Leamed executing e<3ui^|t^i^ the petitioner^ prayer objectiohsraised^himimd&Se<rtion47of^ . (2) Undisputsdly^thepetitionerissufieringadecree.^ of arrears of rent atfd damages. The said decree was passed on 27/08/^07 v^ichhas beeh confirmeamaF^o^^ (3) The petitipner has preferred ari: application under sectipn 47 read v^ sei^cm 151 of GPG tiefi^ the^^e^ objections regarding the exeeutiori ofthe decree on vanous giounds includmg that the relationship (if^^'^ estabUshed,^thegrant;Qfdeci^Tegarding;daniagesisncrtprop^ regardto (rtheffenmilsdecreesliaveBeemofe^ned,.feuttIiosK been executed and a dispute regardmg owiiersfai^ of the premises js ^peadmginvoi^g(^Ch9ad ka&.'^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 2- y (4) Petitioner also moved an application for recordmg evidence of the parties to decide application under section 47 of CPC. The executmg court has rejected the application on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant carmot be questioned in course of execution and the question regarding arrears of rent and damages have been decided by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate ccrtut. (5) Thus, accordihg to the tiial cburt tKere is no requirement of recording eyidence for deciding the applic^tion under section 47 of CPC. (6) In the opinion 6f this court, the executing court has not committed any errcff m rejectmg the prayer fer recordmg evidence. Objection under sectiori 47 ofCPC eannot be^onverted into fulfledge trial. Ifthe executirig court is dfthe opinion that fhe application can be disposedofwifhoutrecordingevidence,nofaultcould be attached fo thesaidorder.It has not beeri pointed out that any disputed question offact is required to be adjudicated. (7) In the opinion of this court, present is not a fit case for interference under Article 227 ofthe CoriStiftitutionofIndia. (8) In the result, the petiton &ils Snd is hereby dismissed. PrashanS»" sbra Judge