:^\ ^z^. 'V^V^^-l.VY—^^:^ .^••^-L.-V.-u^-fa-..,-^^.•\.-^"^.—:-^^.^.^ ^^ .^•' ^<:"y ^^ / IX 'w \^.$> ^}^\ '"^-T^J v 'f^-..^. IN THEHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR (C.G.l WP227No^6^ /2009 PETITIONER Bharat Petrolium Corporation Limited Through : Chairman ^ Bharat Bhawan, 4 8s 6 Karim Bhai Road f}.-^-^ .. Bellard Estate >:''<Sl.^>' ./ Mumbai- 400 001 (Through Power of Attorney holder Debasis Naik S/o BaidyanathAge 43Yrs VERSUS ^o--w, ^if^ ^ RESPONDBNTS DECREE HOLDERS 1. Khatanand Sharaf alais K. Anand 8/oLate Tularam Sharaf aged 70 years 2. Dharam Prakash Sharaf S/oKhatanand Sharaf aged 40 years 3. Safyaprakash Sharaf Aged 35 years S/o Khatanand All resident of kilaward, Juna Bilaspur (No. 2 and 3 Present address) Quarter No. F 22/5 Block Korba Tah. 85 Distt. Korba WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA <"yiy' HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice_Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petitioii (2271 N0.2666/2009. Pet'rtioner Respondents Versus Bharat Petrolium Corporation Umlted. atanand Sharaf alais K. Anand and others. Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Wrlt Petition under Artiele 227 of the Consfrtution of India ORAL. ORDER . .. --- {22M.2Q1Q) Heard. (2) By the impugned order dated 02.05.2009, (Annexure-P/4), the (eamed executing Court has directed to issue warrant of possesslon and warrant of attachment and for fts service on the judgment debtor/petitloner as according to the executmg Court the decree has rsot yet been satisfied. (3) Learned counsel for the petltioner submite that the catoulation made by the executing Court In para 9 of the Order reaching to a conclysion that a sum of Rs.26,258.75/- is stili remalning to be paid by the jydgment debtor is Incorrect In as much as the judgment debtor has aiready deilvered the possession of the property on 31.08.2008, therefore, damages @ Rs.1000/- per month cannot be calculated after the said date. (4) On perusal of the impugnecl order, this Court does not fsnd that the statement made by the learned counset for the petitloner Is correct. In RQTB 10 of the Order, the executing Court has observed that the prayer made by the decree holder for handing over the of the disputed tand has been allowed by the executing Coyrt. This fobservatlon necessariiy means that atleast tlit the of the order, j.e. -^- t'dl 02.05.2009, possesslon of the disputed land was not handed over by the juclgment debtor. (5) In the optnion of this Goiirt, learned counsel for the petitloner has not been able to demonstrate any palpabte error of jurisdiction comm'stted by the executing Court in passing the impugned order warrantlng interference In exercise of power under Artlde 227 of the Const'rtution of India. The petltlon faits and It I®hereby at the admission stage. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^