Smt. Kamlesh Sharma vs Dr. Rajendra Kumar and Another

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the order dated 29.1.2013, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner u/s 47, CPC, (Annexure P/4) is rejected by the court below. Petitioner and respondent No. 1 jointly filed a civil suit against the respondent No. 2. The said civil suit was decreed on 21.11.2009. The trial court directed that the defendant (respondent No. 2 herein) shall give vacant possession of the suit house to plaintiff No. 2 (respondent No. 1 herein) before 31st July, 2010.

The present petitioner, wife of respondent No. 1 herein, preferred an application u/s 47, CPC, contending that defendant Raghuvir Prasad has given the possession of suit property to the present petitioner. The respondent No. 1 is bent upon to illegally occupy the property. Certain other points were also raised in the said application. The court below rejected the said application by impugned order dated 29.1.2013.

Criticizing this order, Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it is not in dispute that as per the judgment dated 21.11.2009, the defendant was required to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff No. 2/respondent No. 1. However, after the judgment and decree, certain subsequent events have taken place, which have been narrated in Annexure P/4. The Executing Court has committed an error in not considering the said subsequent events.

Prayer is opposed by Shri N.K. Gupta. He submits that by earlier order dated 18.3.2012, similar prayer of the petitioner is rejected by the court below.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The court below in order dated 29.1.2013 (Annexure P/1) has given a specific finding that on 13.8.2012 it has passed a detailed order and rejected the application of present petitioner preferred u/s 151 CPC. In the said application also the petitioner had submitted that the respondent No. 1 herein is trying to illegally occupy the suit property. The said application was rejected by the court below by detailed order dated 13.8.2012. The petitioner has not disputed the factum of passing of order dated 13.8.2012 by the trial Court. The singular contention advanced by Shri A.K. Sharma is that after the judgment and decree, subsequent events have taken place because of which the trial court needs to examine the case from a different angle.

I do not see any merits in the said contention. This is settled in law that the Executing Court cannot travel beyond and behind the judgment and decree. The court below rejected the application on the ground that the contents of said application were already rejected by order dated 13.8.2012. The said order, in absence of challenge, has attained finality. I find no infirmity in the said finding of the court below. The court below is not obliged to travel beyond the scope of the judgment and decree. Resultantly, this petition cannot be entertained. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity, interference can be made. Interference is made to ensure that Courts below act within the bounds of their authority. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. Interference can be made sparingly for the said purpose and not for correcting error of facts and law in a routine manner. This view is taken in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, .

None of these grounds is available In the present case on which interference can be made. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.