^<AR.2¥^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR ^. . n_^ C.R. No. ©OF 2006 yREVISIONERS: /^l. Bhola Ram, aged 45 years, son of Shri Chaitu Satnami, :2. Vishambhar, aged 43 years, son of Shri yChaitu Satnami, Both residents of village Sukulkari, tehsil Masturi, district Bilaspur (C.G.) (Objector) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: ^ ^(1) Mansai, aged 60 years, son of Shri Kholu '^(2) Dilsai, aged 50 years, son ofShri Kholu (3) Hirasai, aged 40 years, son ofShri Kholu ^" All residents of village Dhuwakari, tehsil & district Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Plaintiffs/decree-holder) ^/^y ^ (4) Sunder Singh @ Sunderlal, aged 60 ^/^ p ^ years, son of Shri Sant Ram, resident of ^^ / Dayalband, Bilaspur, tehsil & district ^ ^ Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Defendant/judgment-debtor) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CrVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. XI-HC-78 W^T^Tf^TT^ c^TT 3TR?T ?RToF *41^dlsh*lict» 3^T^IWId4, ^Tf1^41<o, f^crtKriy C^.M.-^/C9/.^ 200 3TT^rq^F7 (*icl^<s<^) ^cIT^K ^rf^T ^IT^T 14.09.2006 Shri Somnath Verma, iearhed Shri M.K. Bhaduri, learnec| p^rties, With the consent ofthe p^rties The appiicants/revisioner^ the order dated 25.1.2006 pass^d Execution Case No. 5-B/99 and rejected the objections of the the property described in paragr^ph thatthe appiicants are in posses^i of their ancestors though the debtor in the revenue record. The above application w^s Section 151 ofthe CodepfCiviit said appiication'that the appiicar|ts in the Court of 9th Civil Judge, debtor with respect to the sam|€ there. Learned counsel for th appiication has been preferred C.P.C. but in fact that appiicatioh 4)l<4ld^rlW:Rff ^ fe^ ^^l< ^3^'R'3TI^T counsei for the appiicants. counsel for the respondents. ?, the revision is heard finally. have preferred this civii revision against by Additionai District Judge, Bilaspur in (3y which the Jearned executing Court has apj^iicants against the order of attachment of 1 ofthe appiication on the ground ses^ion ofthe suit property sincethe lifetime sa^ne is recorded in the name of judgment preferred under Section 47 read with Procedure. !t was also contended in the have preferred a civi! suit No. 46-A/05 Ciass-11, Bilaspur against the judgment property which is at present pending ^ applicants submits that though the i|)y the objectors under Sectlon 47 of the was meant under Order 21 RuEe 58 of XI-HC-78 ^n^T^Tf^rf^ ^TT3TT^T$b^|cb <-m^TT^»*11<ft 5F5ET r^Hld<LI, ^Tfl^^Ko, fadKiy ..^3.%/^...^200 3TT^?T IT^9? (<ic(^q<i8T) ^rrw^Ts^ -z- thht the C.P.C. and simply because| appiication, the same cannot ^ executing Court to adjudicate a^ C.P.C. He further submits that | the ground that the objectors h^ satisfy the executing Court property except their own affida^ the iand in question is recorde|J revenue record. The oniy cours^ proceedings ofthe execution tii!] the appiicants/objectors is decid( js also argued that the instant Court has not exercised the disct On the other hand, les seriously questioned the mainte view ofthe proviso to Section 1 the objection preferred by the case aiso the execution proce finajly and therefore, the instanl submits that if'the objection oi ^izrfepNw^Ff^te^ ^C^RZH: ^a^'R'w^T |of nQn-mentioning of its provisions inthe ^e rejected. it was incumbent upon the per provisions of Order 21 Ruie 58 of the the objection has been rejected simpiy on ^ve not filed any document to prima facie they were in possessipn of the suit it and they themseives have admitted that in the name of judgment debtor in the ^ open tothe Court belowwas to stay the |the dispute between judgment debtor and ^d in a civil suit filed by the appiicants. it 1-evision is maintainabie as the executing 1-etion vested in it. |rned counsel for the respondents has inabiiity of the instant revision petition in 1|5 ofthe C.P.C. and submitted that even if a^plicants wouid have been ailowed, in that ^dings would not have been terminated revision is not maintainabie. He further the objectors in execution proceedings XI-HC-78 ^n^T^r^icb cT^rT3TT^T$h*4|ch •^ ^WWl »>*1(ch 3^T ^i^icn^, ^Tfl^Ko, RlcrtW^ c:n^M°^ W[ 200 311^1 ^l^ch (^I^^) ?^TW:^f?cTW^T -.3-\ under Order 21 Ruie 58 of th^ objectors is to prefer a civil suj by which the objector is at lib| which he claims to the propert\| 1 have heard learned ccjunsel forthe parties and have perused the impugned order. it is not in dispute that a| No. 1 to 3 against respondenf applicants under Section 47 grounds mentioned hereinabc|ve instituted by the applicants ags a competent civii Court and nc| Court in that suit. As per ord^r ciaims to, or objections to atta|cl the Court dealing with the c!a| and as per sub-ruie 4 where upon under this ruie, the orde|' and be subject to the same were a decree. According to preferred and the Court, und^r ct)i^f<^41Ti ^w^i ^ tel^t <[^<-a< ^)'3^^T3TT^T C.P.C. is rejected, the course open to the as per Order 21 Ruie 58 (5) ofthe C.P.C. (rty to institute a suit to establish the right in dispute. [decree was passed in favour of respondent No. 4 and the objection preferred by the |of the C.P.C. has been rejected on the It is also not in dispute that a suit ^inst the judgment debtor is pending before interim order has been passed bythe civil 21 Rule58 of the C.P.C, adjudication of ta|chment of property is to be determined by |m or objection and not by a separate suit ahy ciaim or objection has been adjudicated lel' made thereon shall have the same force c^nditions as to appeai or otherwise as if it |sub-ru!e 5 where a daim or an objection is id^r the proviso to sub-ruie (1), refuses to ^ XI-HC-78 +11+1HI Sh+lich 3^ ^i^icn^, ^Tfl<ri^<o, fci<ni^^< c:^Q3i°^^ 200 3TT^T q^gRT (^qi^^) 3Tr^T^)Tf<^i<=h cT8TT3TT^Tst)^fch c- ^^f-^ ?^TTW ^cT 3TT^?T ^-+ r^ ^' :^f" entertain it, the party against ^ toestablish the right, which subject to the result of such 4 the claim or objection shall be| /hom such order is made may institute a suit tjie claims to be the property in dispute; but, tuit, jf any, an order so refusing to entertain tcondusive. Bare reading of Order the objection regarding c!aim| dedded by the executing Coi|rt is decided and the objection execution of the decree is ndt the only remedy'to institute a| has already been filed by the order passed by the executin|g civii Couri: in the suit and the irts cbl<Mf<n<41r1 HTR^ff ^* fe^ <p3i^l< ^3Tf^T3TT^T p1 Ru!e 58 of the C.P.C. goes to show that |of any objector or any other party is to be in execution proceedings and ifthe same Igainst the attachment of the property in that i|t entertained, in that case the objector has suit to establish his title. Since a civii suit ^pplicants in the instant case, the impugned Court shali be subject to decision of the iristant revision is not maintainable. !n the result, the re\{ision bei'ng without any forcs is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O. r"'