^•-l^pv^^*^-/^^-/*^^/<^L^-^l-'~^^/^J'^'' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION f227) N0.3.0.1.5... OF 20U ramTiONER JUDGEMENT DEBTQR/ PLAINTIFF RESPQNDENTS DECREE HOLDERS7 DEFENDANTS '-^^w . ..../-'^F:\^-' ^s^....^" VERSUS 1. 2. Himmat Bhai Baghela S/o. Late Babu Bhai Baghela, aged about 65 years, R/o. Balodeo Baag Rajnandgaon, Teh 8e, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Smt. Saroj Baghela W/o. Late Anand Rai Baghela, aged about 60 years, R/o. Balodeo Baag Rajnandgaon, Teh & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Ramdeek Lal @ Bhoopat Bhai Baghela, aged about 68 years, at present R/ o. Housing Board Colony Lal Baag Rajnandgaon, Teh 8s Distt. Rajnandgaoh (C.G.) ^RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE^27_OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA PARTICULARS OFTHEPETITIONER: As Per Cause Title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE_RESPQNDENTS : As Per Cause Title. PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE PETITIONjS BEING F11ED-. (i) OrderNp. (ii) -Dated Execution Case No. 66-A/06 19.04.2011 B HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUE Writ Petition (227) No. 3013 of 201 1 PETITIONER Himmat Bhai Baghela Versus '-» * RESPONDENTS Smt. Saroj Baghela & another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Mr. R.N. Jha, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORALORDER (16.06.2011) Heard. 1. Instant petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the legalify and propriety of order dated 19.4.201 Ipassedby 2nd Civil Judge, Class II, Rajnandgaon in Execution Case No. 66-A/2006 whereby and whereunder petitioner's application under Order 21 Rule 29 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code had been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- Pursuant to the compromise between the parties, Civil Judge, Class II, Rajnandgaon passed a decree in Civil Suit No. 66-A/2006 whereby the eviction decree was passed against the petitioner who was plaintiff in that suit. By filing civil suit, the above judgment and decree was assailed by the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground thatthe aforesaiddecree was passed by playing fraud upon him. Instead of preferring application for grant of interim relief in the suit itself, petitioner preferredan application under Order 21 Rule 29 read with Section 151 ofthe Code ofdvil Procedure before the Executing Court. The Executing Court vide impugned order dated 19.4.2011 dismissed the above application on the ground that the aforesaid decree has •M;l •\~ -2.- been passed based on compromise and stay of the execution proceedings would not be proper. 7 3. Having heard learned counsel for the partiesand having perused the order impugned, 1 do not find any illegality in the order impugned passed by the Executing Court in Exiecution Case No.66-A/2006 warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. First of all the decree passed in the aforesaid suit is based on compromise. Moreover, the petitioneris free to avail interim relieffrom the Court in which, according to him, he has filed Civil Suit challenging theaforesaid decree. 5. It is wellsettled princjple of law that this Coyrt, in exerciseof its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itselffrom interferingwith the order passed by the Court below except insuchcaseswhere perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large onthe face of the record.which is not in the present case. 6. Forthe reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition failsand is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is free to pursue his remedy before the Court in which he has preferred civilsuit challenging the aforesaid decree. 7. No order as to costs. ss ^>-?^t^^t'^^yt'jwt^-svf.i ll<^!