ai ^^r B /", (. u IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COLTRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.CU/A 227) No. ^^ /2010 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF ^^ 0^2^°^f '^s''^:^ / ^ei--" RESPONDENT DEFENDANT Brijmohan Gupta, S/o. Laxman Gupta, aged about 51 years, R/o. Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, Police Station & Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS Mohd. Naseem, S/o. Abdul Khalil, aged about 36 years, Proprietor M/s. Reewa Steel Fabrication, Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ;]]•; •",-;T-iT R! •-.^ '^i^Xy s%r fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kiunar Mfehra PETITIONER RESPONDENT Writ Petition (227) No. 6655/2010 : Brijmohan Gupta Versus Mohd. Naseem Appearance: Shri Manbj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioner. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (20.11.2010) Heard. (2) Suit for eviction filed by the petitioner has been decreed ex- parte and execution proceedings are pending. In course of hearing in the execution proceedings when it came to the notice ofthe executinj court that the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 ofCPC for setting aside ex-parte has been preferred by the judgment debtor/tenant and is pending in the same court, tfae executing court has directed that both the matters i.e. execution proceedings as well as MJC proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC be clubbed together. It is this order passed by the executing court which is under challenge in this writ petition. (3) In the opinion of this court, the executing court has not committed any illegality of the nature warranting interference under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia because ifthe eviction decree •: .^. '^ xf: .;.--~i is executed during pendency of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the judgment debtor may be dispossessed without hearing on his prayer for setting aside ex-parte decree. (4) Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that the judgment debtor may prolong the judgment on his application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and the petitioner landlord would be unnecessarily dragged in long drawn litigation. (5) In view ofthe above, it is directed that the court belovv shall make every endeavour to decide the application under Order 9 Rule 13 ofCPC together with an application under section 5 ofLimitation Act as early as possible and preferably within a period offour months from the date ofpresentation ofcertified copy ofthis order. (6) With this observation, the instant writ petition is dismissed. aea Prashants^rMisbra Judge c\.^