^ LAl BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l CfVTL REVrSrON N0 /2006 APPLICANT MEFENDANT JUDGEMENT DEBTOR ^ ^ vf y3- 4. ^y ^/ 6 .7 Roop Sai son of Shri Sundar, aged about 58 years, Vrcaal Kui&ar Rafhore, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Sunder Bodh Ram Rathore, aged about 55 years, son of Shri Sundar Shriram Rathore, aged about 34 years son of Shri Komal Sai. Mulwa, son of Shri Komal Sai, aged about 40 years, Jugari Bai, wife of Shri Milaye, daughter of Komal Sai, aged about 40 years, Applicant No. 1 to 6 are the resident of Nawapara, vfllage Bacharwar, Tah. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Ram Rati, aged about 45 years, wife of Shri Hira Lal, daughter of Komal Sai. Resident of village Chorbhatti, Post Jatahri, District Sahdol (M.P.) T RESPONDENTS DECREE HOLDER PLAINTIFP JUDGEMENT DEBTORS DEFENDANT 1 ^ VERSUS Shiv Prasad, son of Sudarshan Rathore, aged about 58 years, 2^ Tala Ram, aged about 45 years, son of Shri Sundar, ^3. Nan Bai aKas Chakarbati, wife of Bali Ram, daughter ofSundar, 4 Shiv Prausad alias Shobha, aged about 45 years, son of Konial Sai, All are residents of Nawapara, Bacharwar, Tah; Pendra Road, District BHaspur (C.G.) s,^--"" MEMO OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908 XI-HC-22 3^ •^|A||<nq, S$TH'HJI<S, (c|d|^lj,< W <-j^ch Trrowgwra?"" "•"""-''•••••••^ 200^ ^^ W^T^T R^ich3TI^T 5bHTcf) t^^rf^T W^T^crT^^fgcT onler agreen|ient 28.8.2006 Shri Yogendra Heaid on admission. This is a rcvision £ile<8 Civil Procedurc agaiast passed by the Executing A/1986, whereby fhe said C] by the judgment debtor| performance of an construction over the perforaaance cannot be ord^ A perusal of the im} Appeal, would show th^t performance of an bearing Khasra No. 976/1(, No. 977/1, arca 0.109 h<( about any super-stnicturc) Executiag Court dismissejd decree relates to specifijc regarding executfon of a holder pertaiiung to fhes^ J&nstTated on fhe groun^ sitiiated on the said land o|r pendency of the suit or under Section 47 of fhe Cck by fhe Executing Court. Chatuijvedi, couasel for the applicaaits, agreen|ent Ghi<Lif^i<IJ1-i nroff^ te^t" <r^<.<ii< ^^rf^rw^T under Section 115 ofthe Code of dated 9.5.2006 (Axmexurc A-l) ICourt ia exeoution ca< No, 134- |ourt disxxassed tMe objection raised agaiast fhe decrce fbr specific saymg fhat there is also a tisputed laiid and the specij&c |?red on this ground, [^ugned d^sree, passed in fhe First tfae decree relates to speci&c to sale perteinmg to 2 idots area 0.020 hectares and Khasra ictarcs. The decree does not say etc. over the suit prexaises, The fhe objection, holdmg tfaat fhe performance of aa agreement sale-deed ia favoiir of the decree lands aad fhe decrce cannot te that a super-structure is also it has been constnicted dunng the The objection which was filed le of Civil Procediue was dismissed apjpeal, XI-HC-22 CT^T^T ^[<=h3TT^T $b^lcb^f?cT $h^|cb ^^A.t^A T^T ^|^|<nq, ^TD^^Ko, Rcrll^y< 311^1 M5|ch HTRC-TFsh^T^) .€;^-}A' W^ 200( 3T1^T?^TW:^f?cT — 2-r It is settled principle caanot go beyond fhe term^ objection under Sectioa 47 <|» fhe opmion of this Court, ft|ic enor of law while dismissinfe execiition chl^f<"l41-l HT^ff ^ tel<ft <Rl<-<il< ^3^TT3n^T of law that ihe Exeeutmg Court of decree wfaile dealing witfa aia rf fhe CSode of Civil Proccdure. Iii Executmg Court committed no such an objection raised by fhe stage. revision, The sanie is summarilv judgment debtor at the There is no merit m thi dismissed at the motion stag^ wifhout notice to the ofher side. Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge ^