Rajat Sen vs Rajpal Singh and Smt. Prabhavati Devi

D.N. Patel, J.—The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India again an order, passed by Sub-Judge VI, Jamshedpur, in Misc. Case No. 31 of 2007, arising out of Execution case No. 1 of 2005, whereby, the objections, raised by the objector under Order 21 Rule 97 to be read with Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, have been admitted and Misc. Case No. 31 of 2007 is awaiting for its final decision by the said trial court, since long and, therefore, the original plaintiff of Title Suit No. 78 of 1996 has preferred this writ petition, because the suit has already been decreed in favour of the present petitioner and, thereafter, First Appeal, preferred against the judgment and decree, passed in Title Suit No. 78 of 1996, was also dismissed and thereafter, Second Appeal, preferred against the judgment and order, passed in Second Appeal, was also dismissed and, therefore, Execution Case No. 1 of 2005 was instituted by the present petitioner (decree-holder) and in this execution case, the objector has raised objection under Order 21 Rule 97, to be read with Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 31 of 2007, and it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner (original decree-holder) that let the trial court be directed to dispose of the Misc. Case No. 31 of 2007, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within the time given by this Court.

I have heard learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 (judgment-debtor), who is a party respondent in Execution case No. 1 of 2005. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 that he has no much objection, if a direction is given for earlier disposal of Misc. Case No. 31 of 2007, within the stipulated time, in accordance with law and after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the parties.

Though respondent No. 2 has been served with the notice, nobody appears on her behalf.

Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present petitioner is in search of justice, to be done, from the year, 1996 onwards. The present petitioner is an original plaintiff, who had instituted Title Suit No. 78 of 1996. The said Title Suit was decreed in favour of the present petitioner and, thereafter, First Appeal as well as Second Appeal, preferred by the original defendant, have also been dismissed. Thereafter, Execution Case No. 1 of 2005 has been preferred by the present petitioner (original plaintiff-decree holder), which is pending before the Execution Court and in this execution application, respondent No. 2 has raised objections under Order 21 Rule 97 to be read with Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been numbered as Misc. Case No. 31 of 2007, which has been admitted by the learned Sub-Judge VI, Jamshedpur vide order dated 6th October, 2007 (Annexure 5 to the memo of petition). Looking to the limited prayer by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that let a direction be given to the trial court for earlier disposal of Misc. Case No. 31 of 2007, I hereby direct the Sub-Judge VI, Jamshedpur, to hear and decide Misc. Case No. 31 of 2007, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably on or before 30th October, 2010, in accordance with law, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the parties to the dispute.

This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of, in view of the above directions.