Petitioners Defendarts Piaintlffe HiGH COURT OF CKHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition iArt.227) No.3347 of 2011 1. Suresh Kumar Bhojwarti, S/o Govind Ram, Aged 50 years, 2. Rajesh Bhojwani, S/o Govlnd Rsm Bhojwani, Aged 37 years, 3oth R/o Gondpara, Bilaspyr, Tahal and Distnct Biiaspur (CG). ' Versus Ashok Kumar Sor.i, S/o Kamts Prasad, Aged 52 years, £~. Sanjeev Kumar @ Raj Kumar, S/o Ramchsran, Aged 38 years, Both R/o Sadar Bazar, Oondpara, Bilaspur (C.G.) p/Vrit Petition under Arttesie 227 ofthe ConstftLiiton of india) Ir.Anand Kamar Mr.Sanjay S.Agrawai, counsei for the petftioners. iVir.Shree Kumar Agrawai, Senior Advocate with Gupta, counsei for the rsspondents. (SB: Hon'bis Mr. T.P. Shanna, J.) ORDER (ORALi (29-8-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Articte 227 of the Con^itutlon of india ths petiiioners have chaStenged the legaiity & propriety of the order dated 13.5.2011 (Annexure P/5) passed by 4th Civil Judge Ciass-l, Bilaspur in Execution Proceeding Case No.6A/08, whereby as per admttted submission of ieamsd coun^! for both the parties decree has been exscuted within two rnonths from dismissal of appeal fliedon behaif of 't'ne^present judgment debtor. 2. i have heard iearned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and other documents flied on behslf ofthe parties. 3. Learned counsei for the petitioners submits that decrse was for evrction under Section 12 (1) (f) ofthe Chhattisgarh Acccxrimodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961') and thsre was ^atutory bar in executton Ji/ ,;,>^., ^ S' ^^XS&^ I Saili ^ 4. 6. of such deoree within two months from the date ef finai decree i.e. decree passed by the appeliate Court dated 21.2.2011. in the^ circumsiances, execufing Court was under obiigation to restore the possession of the petitioners and by not restoring the possession, the executing Court has committed Hiegaiity. Learned counsei further submits that after eviction of the petitioners within siatutory period <rf two months on 5.4.2011, they have fiied petition on 18.4.2011. They have aiso fited Second Appeal against the judgment & decree passed by the appeiiate Court, but they are not in a position to file any application for stay on the ground of execuiion of decres before statutory pericd. Learned counsel confended that the Court beiow was under obiigation io consider ths mandaiory provisions and statutory bar crsated under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Aci, 1961 for execution of decree wlthin two months from finai decree, therefore, the Court was under obligatian to restore the possession when same was eame into Its knowisc^e. Learned counsei piaced reiiance in the matter of Muiraj v. Raghunathj' Maharaj in which ths Supreme Court has heid Shat the Court has the powe,- to set aside the proceedings taken betwesn the time when the stay order was passed and the tims Vv'hen it was brought to its notice, if ii is asked to do so and it considers that it is necessar/ in the interests ofjustice that the interim proceedings shouid be sei asids under Section 151 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, learned counsei for the respondsnts opposes the petition and submits that decree has already bsen executed and even otherwise, statutory period came to an end on 21.4.201 1, but the present writ peSition has been filed on 24.6.2011, therefore, it wouid be oniy academic quesiion after execution of decree and ending of siatatury period as framed by the petitioners. i do ^ot find any ground for interference In the order Consequentiy, the wrtt petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissedand it is hereby dtemissed at the motion stage itseif. No order astocosts. — Sd/- T.P.Sharma judge 'AIR 1967 SC. 13SC ^ ^