IN TEE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (ART227) {éf/mqy / PETITIONERS (1) SMT SURAJ BAI WIDOW OF MAHADEV SONI, AGE 61 YRS (2) ASHOK KUMAR, S/o MAHADEV (JUDGEMENT DEBTOR) SONI, AGE 41 YRS (DEFENDANTS) / (3) SANT KUIVIAR, S/O MAHADEV SONI,AGE 39 YRS xN‘I’ETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARL MANDAMUS, OR ANY OEHER SUITABLE WRIT. / 1 TO 3 R/O GRAM BELGHANA, TAHSIL KOTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR (C.G.) V/S RESPONDENTS NAND KISHOR PANDEY, S/O PYARELAL PANDEY, AGE 72 (DECREE HOLDER) YRS, R/O GRAM BELGHANA, (PLAINTIFF) TAHSIL KOTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR (C.G.) (2) STATE OF CHI-IATTISGARH , (DEFENDANT No.4) THROUGH COLLECTOR, BILASFUR (C.G.) g? Smt. Suraj Bai and others. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) NO. 165 OF 2011 PETQTIONERS (Judgment Debtor) DEFENDANTS Versus Nand Kishor Pandey and another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA k (Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aqarwal, J.) Present : ShriAIiAsgar,counselforthe petitioners. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 19‘“ day of January, 2011) Heard on admission. 2. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 08-12-2010 passed by the Third Civil Judge, Ciass-il, Bilaspur in Execution Case No. 2-A/2006 rejecting the petitioners objection preferred by them tiled under Section 47 of. Code of Civil Procedure, i908 (for short ‘the CPC’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit: dispute raised was regarding location of the house i.e. whether it was constructed on petitioners’ land or on the land of the respondent which squarely comes under Section 47 of the C.P.C, and the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the above objection. 4. l have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Vide judgment and decree dated 18-10-2006 (Annexure P-3), the learned Eighth Civil Judge, Class—ll, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.2-A/2006 has categorically recorded a finding that the petitioners have constructed the house over the land which belongs to the respondent. Admittedly, the above nnding had @ attained finality in as much as the first appeal and the second_ appeal preferred there against have been dismissed. it is settled law that the Executing Court can not go behind the decree. in view of the above, the Iearned trial Court has rightly dismissed the objection preferred by the petitioners. 6. The petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the trial Court warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. lt is‘well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 8. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby rejected. No order asto costs. Sd/— N.K. Agrawal Judge Kvr