03 (p BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA^PUR W.P.lSTo. -4'Q^"^ Of20'65. PETITIONERS JUDGMENT DEBTORS ^ ^t^^y'.- ^%^':>-""" ^"•^\'r6>"~ ^^5^ < RESPONDENT DECREE HOLDER 1. Sukhlal Patel, son ofLate Shri Shivlal Patel, aged about 59 years, resident of Santoshi Ward, Jagdalpur (C.G.), 2. Sukal Ram Patel, Son of Late Shri Shivlal Patel, aged about 47 years, resident of Singarbhat, Kaaker, District Kanker (M.P.) (now Chhattisgarh), 3. Sukalu Ram, son of Late Shivlal Patel, aged about 55 years, resident of Gram Hatkongara, Tahsil Kanker, District Kanker (Chhattisgarh), 4. Dhukhuram, son of Late Shivlal Patel, aged about 67 years, resident of Singarbhat, Kanker, District Kanker (Chhattisgarh), 5. Smt. Sushila Bai (wrongly typed as Sushilal Bai in Civil Revision), widow of Sukhu Ram, aged about 60 years, resident of Singarbhat, Kanker, District Kanker (Chhattisgarh). VE R SU S / Shri Mahendra Kumar Golcha, son of Late Shri Jeevanlal Golcha, Rajapur, Kanker, District Kanker (Chhattisgarh). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-78 *11*101 ^*fT^ vd-cq ^ii«io)«,u>Tl1'<-l<«o,Rlc^l^^ .L^.?....b.T.^\?.?. 95 3TI^$T tRRp (^c|^<s|<^) ^200 3TT^^T<PTR^J<b ?CT3^$T3W€p B^TTWr^Tf^T CT^^T \ unlder 09.9.2005 Shri i-I.B. A9arwai, Sr. 4 for The petitioners. Shri Para9 Kotecha, couni Sy this writ petition Indsa the peTitioners have correctness of ord@r dated CIass-I, Kanker in Execution Jud9e has rejected the applica|' Section 151 of the Cods of Civiil I have heard iearned cour Perusai of applicGtion execution has been fiied ha^ Registrar, Co-Qperatiye, th& ground 1+iat ^x^cution learned counsel for The respoi) Re9i^trar on the ba^i^ of w^ already been set aside by th| thereby the decree passed ir{ Court stands reyived and exccut I have also peru^d th< Jud9e in which he has mention^d the decree oassed bt SKOWS therefbre stankl^ <Pl<4fw<!ftyt*l!+loT^"f^^ ^f§R:2R !|)3rf^»T3lI^?T dvocate wi-rti Shri J.K. ^upta, Advocate s.i for the Re^pondents on caveat. Articie 227 of the Consti+ution of ^uestioned the ie9alit/, propriety ond L6.1998 passed by learnfed Civil Judge, |Case N0.23A/81 whereby learned Civil |trion fifed by the petitioners herein under IProcedure- |isel for the parties. tiiat decree on the basis of which already been set-aside by the Joint ^ ths execution shouid be rejected on termina+ed and doas not lie, Wh^r^afi, hdent submitteci That the order of Joint tich this applicatjon ha3 been fi!ed has Co-'operative Tribunal on 2.3.2001 and favour of the respondent by the Civil rion of fiame has been fsled, impugned order passed by learned Civii that the execution has been fiSed after 1+ie Ciyi! Court. Even though it has been r XI-HC-78 vd-cq '-<ii«io«,tP-al<<-|<Ko, Rc)l<<^'< 96 *ii*ioi ^m^ 3TT^?T q^? (^cl^d^) WL200 sn^^Tcprf^TN) ^IT3n^$T3W<P ^w< ^ g^ITWr^Tf^T 31T^$T mentioned in the order that thel cioes not affect -rtie decree of| above thot after filmg of this stands terminated on the groun|j been rever^ed by the Co-operat| jilegaiity or infjrmity in the ordej been abb to make out a cosel Article 227 of the Constitutionl and it is accordingly, dismis^^d a^ Mow&ver/ learned couns^ order of tribunal has already jurisdiction in which this COLJ respondent is not entjtled for| matter from this case, if any patition th^n that is for* Consequently, M.(W.)P. &7511/05 also stdnd dismissed. ^tay th& exe^uting (pi^rw<iiri ^^oT^'f^^i >(Ri<<-ci<< ^srf^TaiI^ST befen order of Joint Registror dated 3.9.1992 civil court, but as has been mentioned Qpplication the basis of This appiication that the order of Joint Re9J^trar has ve Tribuna}, therefore, I do not find any r impugned and the petitioners have not for interference by thss Court under of India, same is ikible to be dismissed the admission stage itself* J for th& p&titioners submitt&d that chalienged before this Court in a wriT rt has granted stay, therefore, the execution of dec(<ee. That is separate is 9rantedJ?y this Court in any writ i Court.^'^irz.^'^-^- No.3348/05 and I.A. Nos.7510/09 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge