Ashok Kumar Singh vs Geeta Devi

Heard the parties.

This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of this civil miscellaneous petition.

Since, hearing of this civil miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous.

Heard the parties.

This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer for setting aside the order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in Execution Case No. 02 of 2011.

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner being the judgment-debtor in Execution Case No. 02 of 2011 filed a petition dated 06.04.2015 stating therein that the decree holder put pressure upon the judgment-debtor to demolish the portion of his residential house and a document was prepared after putting pressure upon the judgment-debtor by which the judgment-debtor took one month’s time to remove the wall from other side of his house over plot no. 881 for the rasta for the decree holder, so, appropriate orders be passed.

The same was objected to by the decree holder by contending that the nazir and the process server in conspiracy with the judgment-debtor and his relatives have avoided to execute the decree in terms of writ of delivery of possession issued by the court. It was also pleaded by the decree holder that the decree holder has not entered into any compromise with the judgment-debtor.

The learned Civil Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj considered that writ of delivery of possession was issued on 20.12.2014 but the same has not been executed. It appeared to the learned Civil Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj from the report of the Nazir that the husband of the decree holder entered into a compromise with the judgment-debtor hence, the Nazir failed to execute the decree in terms of the writ of delivery of possession. Therefore, Nazir was directed by the learned Civil Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj to execute the writ of delivery of possession de novo.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the opposite party namely Ram Baran Singh is the pairvikar of the litigation on behalf of the decree holder and without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, the executing court has ordered for issue of writ of delivery of possession. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delivery of possession has been executed by Nazir by way of compromise petition; with the consent of both the parties without any pressure and in presence of respectable people and the petitioner has already provided a rasta to the opposite party in compliance of the compromise petition. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is illegal and unjustified and without any basis as well as far from the fact and circumstances of the case and has been passed without considering the fact that already execution of the writ of delivery of possession of rasta has been made. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier W.P.(C) No. 3323 of 2018 was filed in this Court challenging the order dated 14.08.2015 passed in Execution Case No. 02 of 2011 but on the basis of the joint submission and agreement of both the parties regarding compromise and withdrawal of Execution Case No. 02 of 2011, this Court vide order dated 14.05.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3323 of 2018 dismissed the writ petition as infructuous; after recording the fact that both the parties have settled the matter outside the Court. Hence, it is submitted that prayer as made in this civil miscellaneous petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that in the petition dated 06.04.2015 filed before the executing court, the petitioner herein has himself stated that he put his signature on the compromise petition under pressure, thus, he himself contradicted the compromise between the parties but in the W.P.(C) No. 3323 of 2018 the petitioner cunningly submitted that the compromise has been entered into between the parties outside the court and in the instant civil miscellaneous petition by submitting the same version the petitioner has got the stay order of the execution case vide order dated 16.02.2016 by suppressing the material fact; that vide order of this Court dated 08.10.2025 passed in C.M.P. No. 895 of 2025 filed by the answering opposite party, process of execution case is going on, in view of the guideline laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 but instead of contesting C.M.P. No. 895 of 2025 in which case the petitioner herein, is the opposite party and he has appeared in that case, the petitioner has filed this civil miscellaneous petition by suppressing the material facts. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that since the W.P.(C) No. 3323 of 2018 filed with the selfsame prayer, has been dismissed by this Court, so the prayer made in this civil miscellaneous petition is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. It is therefore submitted that there being no illegality in the impugned order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in Execution Case No. 02 of 2011, this civil miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that though for the selfsame prayer, W.P.(C) No. 3323 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner but the same has been dismissed by this Court on 14.05.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) (Filing) No. 1465 of 2026 which was also dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.02.2026. In view of the dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 3323 of 2018, this Court has no hesitation in holding that for the selfsame prayer of quashing the order dated 14.08.2015 passed in Execution Case No. 02 of 2011, this civil miscellaneous petition is not maintainable, being barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. Otherwise also, it appears that the opposite party has not entered into any compromise with the judgment-debtor. It is needless to mention here that the husband of the decree holder is a separate entity than the decree holder herself; so any compromise entered into between the judgment-debtor with the husband of the decree holder is not binding upon the decree holder, when the decree holder is not a party of which agreement.

From the perusal of the record the learned Civil Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj has found that Nazir has failed to execute the decree as per the terms of the writ of delivery of possession issued. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in Execution Case No. 02 of 2011 warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of this civil miscellaneous petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, is disposed of being infructuous.