Ki a E^S»^ao ISS F g^ih»£^^7; In the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur WP(^f- ^S2% / 2010 Petitioner / Applicant / Decree - Holder Respondent / Non-applicant / Judgement - Debtor '•> /!^£'^°^'E' t ''01^?y'isTI.^ ^^K^s y Nemichand Bhansali, 75 Yrs. S/o Late Amolakchand, Edward Road, Raipur Versus 1. Kesrichand Lodha (fain), 52 Yrs., S/o Sohanraj Lodha 2. Santosh Loda, Age 42 Yrs., S/o Sohanraj Loda 3. Siddhartha Lodha, Age 27 Yrs., S/o Kesrichand Jain ^4. Shubham Lodha, Age 21 Yrs., S/o Kesrichand Jain All C/o Fu'm Munnalal Kesrichand and All R/o Gudiyaarf, Raipur Petition UnderArt. 227 of the Constitution oflndia ifiiaiiifitNNiSiiSBiBBSSg^a ^ .•!t mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 8.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishrii Wnt Petition (227) No. 5528^2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Nemichand Bhansali Versus Kesrichand Lodha and others Appearance: Shri Raja Shamia, counsel for the petitioner. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (27.09.2010) f' The petitioner is the decree holder ofthe decree passed in Civil Suit No.lO-B/2007 decided by the 12th Additional District Judge (FTC), Raipur. The said decree is subject matter of the First Appeal No. 178/2008 pending in this court. In the said first appeal, the judgment debtor's application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC was allowed subject to deposit of 50% ofthe decreetal amount and to furnish security for the remainder before the trial court. (2) The judgment debtor initially fumished a security with respect to a property bearing house No.21/616 situated at Ramsagar Para, Raipur. The judgment debtor subsequently moved the application for change of security which was allowed by the trial court on 10/12/2009. Order sheet of the executing court recorded on 10/12/2009 mentions that the decree holder has not objected to the judgment- debtor's prayer for change ofsecurity. f y^sss ip k^ et. (3) The decree holder/petitioner subsequently moved the application under section 151 of CPC inter alia submitring that he was not present on 10/12/2009 and lawyer vvho has endorsed no objection on the application was never authorized by him either to receive the application or to make endorsement The executing court has rejected the application on 22/04/2010. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10/12/2009 as well as the order dated 22/04/2010. (4) In the opinion of this court, the satisfaction o{ the executing court with respect to the adequacy of the security fumished by the judgment debtor before executing court in pursuance to the interim order granted by this court in pending first appeal can be agitated in the first appeal itself. (5) This writ petition is thus disposed ofwith a direction that ifthe petitioner so desires, he may move appropriate application in first appeal, if according to him the changed security is not sufficient or adequate for satisfying the decree which ultimately be passed in first appeal. (6) This writ petition is disposed of. y^^^ SAll-_,^\s Ea ^sss^ ar