IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT ‘ BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (227) NO. ékNQ OF 2010 Ramsharan Pal, S/o Dhruvlal, aged about 6O years, R/o Village Mathpuraina, District Raipur (C.G.) of Late PETITIONER Judgment debtor/ Defendant Legal Representative Phool Kunwar VERSUS @ kmliaQ Q7 ‘ 13" Vishal,,\S/o Jhadu Dhimar, aged about‘not known, R/o Village Mathpuraina, District (C.G.) (Legal Representative of Late. Kotma Bai) Laxmi Bai, W/o Pratap, aged about not known, RESPON'DENTS Decree holder/ Plaintiff R/o Village Mathpuraina, District Raipur (C.G.) I, ’ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Raipur Jrxrnyuc u viyeFEcogEsa m uma, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.6446 of 2010 Petitioner Ramsharan Pal verSUS Respondents Vishai @ Kushal i and another Present: Shri P.P.Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.D.Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.1i Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18m February, 201 1) Heard 2. The trial Court has rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth ‘the Code’), The executing Court is in seisin of an application for executing the decree passed in Civil Suit No.131—A/1985. The petitioner is objecting to the execution of the decree against him. 3. in the application under Section 47 ofvthe Code (Annexure P~3) prayer has been made for setting aside the execution proceeding against him. 4. Relief claimed in this writ petition, as stated in paragraph 10,2, is to the following effect: \ \ “10.2.The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set \ \ aside'the impugned order dated 9-10-2007 (Annexure \ \ \ \ \ 2 P—1), passed by VI‘h Civii Judge, Class—L Raipur (C.G.) in Execution Case No.131-A/1985 and allow the objection , and set—aside the execution proceeding pending against him in Execution Case No.131-A/1985.” 5. Thus, if the writ petition is aliowed and consequently the petitioner‘s application under Section 47 of the Code is granted, the execution proceeding, as against the petitioner, would come to an end. 6. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Code provides that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. 7. The effect of the aforesaid proviso is that if reversal of the order passed against the party, who is to file the revision petition, would finally dispose of the proceeding in which the order was passed, the revision petition would be maintainabie. In other words, if reversal of the impugned order would not finally terminate the proceeding, a revision under Section 115 of the Code would not be maintainable and in that case, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia lies. 8. in view of the above and in view of the prayer made in the application under Section 47 of the’Code (Annexure P-3) and the prayer made in paragraph 10.2 of the writ petition for setting aside l l 3 the execution proceeding as against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has alternative remedy of fiiing a revision under Section 115 of the Code and the present petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainabie. 9. Accordingiy, the writ petition is dismissed. Certified copy of the impugned order be returned to the petitioner on supplying a xerox copy thereof. “ r/I Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Copat W