C P ( cr •^- ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (227) N0. ^3^ OF 2009JS.B.1 ^ PETITIONER DECREE HOLDER ^^' \^y ,^;^':1- ^'"..^•" Jagdish Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 74 years S/o Late Chhedi Lal Jaiswal, R/o at & Post Office Balodabazar, Tahsil Balodabazar District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : JUDGMENT DEBTORS ^s^ 1. Santosh, aged about 55 years S/o Mohan Lal Jaiswal. (Since Deceased) 2. Vinod, aged about 48 years S/o Mohan lal Jaiswal, Both R/o Village Raseda, Post Raseda Tahsil Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.). 3. Kesar Bai, aged about 60 years W/o Jawahar Lal Jaiswal, R/o Village Chandipara, Pamgarh, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 4. Kamta Prasad, aged about 70 years S/o Chhedi Lal Jaiswal, Retired - A.S.I.S., R/o Sonarpara Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.). 5. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Raipur (C.G.). ^ -r DECREE HOLDERS /6; ^^ Champa Bai, aged about 75 years Widow of Late Kedarnath Jaiswal R/o Village Balrampur, Post Rangadeeh, District Puruliya, (West Bengal) (Since Deceased) 6-A Taraknath Jaiswal S/o Kedarnath Jaiswal, aged about 55 years; 6-B Loknath Jaiswal S/o Kedarnath Jaiswal, aged about 55 years; Both R/o Village Balrampur, Post Rangadeeh, District Puruliya, (WestBengal) 6-C Kailash Kumari Shah W/o Satyanarayan Shah, aged about 60 years; R/o Kailash Traders, 54, R.R. Road, Post Raniganj, District Burdwan (West Bengal) 6-D Karuna Kumari W/o Raghunath Choudhary, aged about 53 years, C/o Sound Master, Opposite National Cinema, Masjid Road, Tahsil and Post Hajipur, District Vaishali (Bihar). 6-E Smt. Usha Kiran Gupta widow of Late Rajkuniar Gupta, aged about 52 years, R/o P-92, Upendra Chandra Banerjee Road, Scheme - 6, M. (S) C.I.T. Road, Kankuargachi, Kolkata -54 (West Bengal) Respondent No.6-A to 6-E are Legal heirs ofrespondent No.6. s WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA %SI Ifl^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 2329/2009 PETITIONER : Jagdish Prasad Jaiswal Versus RESPONDENTS : Santosh and another Appearance: Shri M.K. Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel La\vyer for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CQNSTT£!JT!ONOF_!NmA ORAL ORDER (03.12.2010) Heard. (2) The learned trial court, while allovving the judgment debtors objections has directed that fresh partition/allotment of shares be affected according to the value ofthe property. (3) In cpurse of argument learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this court a copy of jBudgment and decree dated 16/01/1995 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Baloda Bazar in Civil SuitNo.l-A//84. The decree reads as under: "It is ordered and decided that the (<3f) ^ 'STT^T f^lT "ijn?TT t, f^ ^Nt7pji ^i TfN^t ^0-1 31, ^, ^T 1?cT ^0-2 ^n^ra ^ ^T ^cF'T qf^g: "f ^ -crf^ ^ zrr "iTc}7R TT ^ ^cp -^fpr ^i^-cp^R 1/4 W] ^ f^Fto t ^cT vjcMi^i^ ^crr^ ^r ir^ ^ ^ ^s^to^ gi / (^) ~^ ^TT^T f^TT ^fmT f, f^ ^t ^0-1 ^PT^T T?c| ffto^t ^0-1 ST, ..^^!^^^,. 'isSS^SSSS^ ~^SI '%> \Q^> z- sT, ^T ?cT ^0-2 cbl^ldiy^t^ ^T ^3^ 7fo-295 ^ ^ ^ i^ 1N^T ^ ^TFT ^f ^Tlte ?to ^TJT t, ^ ^m ^T^ CT^WTTR ^ tef ^ ^'07TO-1965 ^T ^^T ^c}^r o.18 ^g Z^ Ptdl^ ^R^f? 1/3 'WT ^ WFr IB^<N t f^ s^cTRT ^i^ OT<T c^ z^ ^ter^ f i [^f) ^cffT ^ 'srf^RT I^K sr^cN ^R^r f^i ^nit i ^r STT^T f^TT W^ t, f^ ^TT^TpT ^c[ yRlc||^^|u| ,3[q^-,3p^fr zn^-^Zf ^?T: Zj^T ^f 1 (?) SlteRTT ^{? Mif&I?r ^ ^" Pl^^tl^l^! ^ ?r i s?cf^-??nzTrto zpf gsw 6ioi1ctistMi^ (Troffo) (4) While affecting partition the revenue court allotted the subject house in the share of petitioner/decree holder and the land having inferior market value has been allotted to thejudgment debtor. (5) On account ofthis unequal partition thejudgment debtor raised objection that the partition affected by the revenue officer may not be accepted and a fresh partititon be affected in accordance with the decree. (6) Relying on Shankar Balwant Loldiande (dead) by L.RS., Vs. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande and another, AIR 1995 SC 1211 learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that tilie executmg court was not justified in accepting the objection raised by the judgment debtor because once the partition has been affected by r vt Y the revenue court the same cannot be objected before the executing court. (7) On penisal of the documents annexed with the petition it appears that the revenue court was only directed by the civil court to affect partition in accordance vvith the decree and when the said allotment of share vvas placed before the civil court an objection vvas raised about the inequality in the partition affected by the revenue court. (8) In the opinion of this court, if the revenue offlcer has not affected partition in accordance with the decree, the same has rightly been refused by the executing court. (9) On pemsal ofthe decree, it would appear that the trial court had directed that the land and house contained in schedule B in the plaint be partitioned equally amongst plaintiff, defendant No.l-A, B and C and defendant No.2 by allotting 1/4 share to each ofthem. Thus, the partition ofthe land and house was required to be made equally and the revenue court should not have allotted the house to one of the part)^ and land to other party. The judgment relied by the petitioner is thus, distinguishable 011 facts. (10) The impugned order has been passed perfectly in accordance with the terms of the decree, no case for interference in exercise of powers under Ailicle 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia is made out. (11) Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed. p,asbant Ku.na·· M>sbra