AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Mathur, J
Heard Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.02.2026 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Hardoi in Execution Case No. 17 of 2022 titled as Rajesh Vs. Ramcharan @ Ramchela of Proclamation of Sale Under Order 21 Rule 66 of CPC.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner had taken a shop on rent from respondent No. 5 in which he was selling grocery and paying a rent of Rs. 200/- per month. It has further been submitted that from time to time rent of the said shop was increased but the petitioner was unable to pay the said increase of rent due to which respondent has filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) / Small Cause Court, Hardoi for recovery of rents and eviction of the petitioner which was registered as SCC Case No. 14 / 2014.
The said suit was decreed against the petitioner by means of order dated 26.04.2022 and as the terms and conditions of the decree was not satisfied, an execution case has been preferred by private respondents in which in exercise of powers under Order 21 Rule 66 of CPC proclamation of sale of the house of the petitioner has been issued.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the said property is only property of the person form which he is earning his bread and he has no other house to live and consequently has assailed the proclamation issued under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC.
This Court has considered the arguments of the petitioner and perused the record.
It is noticed that the suit was instituted by private respondents for seeking arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner which suit was instituted in the year 2014 and the suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff by means of order dated 26.04.022 and to execute the said decree the Execution Case was preferred by private respondent against the petitioner. It is in the execution proceedings that the proclamation of sale has been made which has been impugned in the present writ petition. No legal grounds have been submitted by the petitioner to enable this Court to interfere in the impugned order.
Apart from which this Court finds that the petitioner has not satisfied the decree by depositing the decreetal amount before the executing court and consequently having no other remedy the decree would have to be satisfied by selling the house of the petitioner. No other ground has been urged by the petitioner in challenge to the impugned order.
It is in the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any ground for interference, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.