H8QH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH : BILASPUR PETmONER RESPONDENTS ^. WRIT PEimON <Ci N0.254 OF 2007 Smt. Baniya Dew Bhutda, W/o Shivnarayan Bhutda, eged about 65 years, R/o Ganjpara, Durg (CG). Versus 1. Naresh & Company, A partnership company, Registered office at Mehta Bhawan, Ganjpara, Durg{GG). 2. Naresh Kumar Jain, S/o Chandra Kumar Jain, aged about 40 years, R/o Ganjpara, Durg (CG). 3. Sunit Kumar Bhagmar, S/o Late Shri Chandanmat Bhagmar, aged about 35 years, R/o Ganjpara, Durg (CG). 4. Suganchand Sati^ichand Surana, A prqarietorship Firm, through its Proprietor, Satishchand Surana, aged about 46 years, R/o Ganjpara, Durg (CG). 5. Satishchand Surana, S./o Late Shri Suganchand Surana, aged about 46 years, R/o Ganjpara, Durg (CG), Proprietor of Suganchand Satishchand Surana, A proprietorship firm. 6. tnddrchand Surana, S/o Late Shri Suganchand Surana, aged about 57 years, R/o Ganjpara, Durg (CG). (Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of !ndia) Single Bench: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Pramod Verma, Sr. Advocate with Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 2S day of November, 2088) By this petition. the petitioner seeks to chaltenge the tegality and vaHdity of the order dated 31-7-2006 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the Fourth Additiona! District Judge, Durg, in execution case No.1-8/2001, whereby the Court below rejected the application of the 2-- ^fSSSSS^ /^-"^\ 't.. y / 9SS-^'./' t!Ste,aSf2?'' respondent No.2 with an observation that the parties may seek remedy in the Civi! Court r^arding their respective shares in the surplus sale proceedings, lying in the Court. 2) The indisputabte facts, in nutsheli. as projected by the p^itioner, are that the petitioner and the respondents No.2 & 3 were doing the business in the name & sty!e of Naresh & Company i.e. the respondent No.1 herein under the partnership deed dated 6-5-1992. The respondents No.4 to 6 ffled a ciwl suit for recovery of Rs.13,57,365/- against Naresh & Company and ite partners. The said dispute was compromised in Lok Adalat on 7-9-2003 and accordingly a decree was passed in favour of the respondents No.4 to 6 Tor a sum of Rs.12.TO facs. Thereafter, the respondents No.4 to 6 fited an execution proceeding. tn the said proceeding, the petitioner filed applications stating that the property as annexed in Schedute A & B of the decree may be permftted to be sold. The same was objected by the respondents No.1 & 2 on the ground that the pet'rtioner has no interest in the firm, she had already retired from the partnership firm and, as such, she does not possess any interest in the property in question. 3) The Court below by order dated 19-1-2006 rejected the objection raised by the respondents and directed auction sate of the immovable properties contained in the schedule for realization of the decretal amount. In compliance of the afor^aid order, the property has been sold and after the payment of decretal amount, an amount of Rs.61.00 lacs remained surplus. For equal distribution of the said amount amongst the partners, the petitioner moved an application before the Court below, whteh was also objected by the respondents No-2 S. 3 stating that she was not entitied for any amount. The respondent No.2 also filed appiications praying that an amount of Rs.39.00 lacs be given to him and an amount of Rs.20.00 lacs be given to the respondent No.3. The respondent No.2 ateo contended in the said application that the petitioner is not entitled for any amount, as she had already retired. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the Court belcw by order dated 31-7-2006 directed the "A~i3a; -< ^ parties to seek a decteratton/clarification from the Civil Court within a period of six months about the respective shares of the petitioner as well as respondents No.2 & 3. The Court below ateo directed to depo^t the whole amount in the Bank in the form of fixed deposit for a period of sb< months in the name of Court or respondent No.1. Being aggrieved by the said orcter, the petftioner has fited this petition. 4) Shri Pramod Verma, learned senior counsel appearing on the behatf of the petitioner, would submit that the Court beiow without appreciating the fects and cireumstances of the case in its letter and spirit directed the parties to obtain declaration from the Civit Court. Learned counsel would further submit that the Court below ought to have appreciated the fact that by order 19-1-20W the Court has atready hetd that the petitioner is a partner in the respondent No.1 firm; therefore, there was no occasion for the Court to direct the parties to obtain declaration from the C.ivH Court. Learned counse! would ateo submit that the executing Court be directec! to equally distribute the amount so deposited amongst the partners. 5) l have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The compromise decree on the basis of which, execiftion take place does not provide for apportionment of the amount and, as such, the executing Court was just and proper in observing that the parties may approach the Givi! Court for clarification/declaration in regard to apportionment of the batance amount after satisfaction of the decreta! amount. Thus, the order dated 31-7-2006 is unexceptionabte, just & proper and does not 'warrant any interference. 6) This Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdfctton under Articte 227 of the Constittrtion of (ndia shouid refrain itseif from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, tilegatity, irreguterity or jurisdictiona! error is writ iarge on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 7) !n view of the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihoc Judge