Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 555 (JHR)

Buknu Ram @ Somra Ram Misir v. Maniur Rahman

2005-07-27

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2005
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This substitution petition has been filed on behalf of the heirs of late Buknu Ram @ Somra Ram Misir, sole petitioner/decree-holder with a prayer to substitute them in his place, who died during the pendency of the writ petition on 6th June 2005 leaving behind one son and five married daughters whose descriptions are given below : (i) Basudeo Ram Misir, son of late Buknu Ram @ Somra Ram Misir, resident of village Bhargaon, police station Senha, District Lohardaga. (ii) Kalawati Devi, w/o Gunadhi Rai Misir, resident of village Khirji, P.O. Irgaon, District Lohardaga. (iii) Sita Devi, wife of Suryadeo Singh, resident of village Tarme, Fatehpur, Post Office Tarwa, District Aurangabad (Bihar). (iv) Shakuntala Devi, wife of Chandradeo Singh, resident of village Tarme, Fatehpur, Post Office Tarwa, District Aurangabad (Bihar). (v) Savitri Devi, wife of Daroga Singh, resident of village Kachanpur, post office Kashipur, District Aurangabad (Bihar). (vi) Leela Devi, wife of Lal Krishna Kishore Deo, resident of village Patiya, P.O. Patiya, district Gumla. 2. It is informed that all the heirs of the sole deceased-petitioner/decree holder appeared and filed their vakalatnama. It is also informed that the heirs of the deceased-petitioner/decree holder have also filed a petition for substitution in the Court below but as the original record of the case is lying in this Court, no order has been passed thereon. 3. Having heard the counsel for the parties and on considering the fact that the substitution petition has been filed in time, the prayer made in therein is allowed. Let the name of the deceased sole petitioner/ decree holder, namely, late Buknu Ram @ Somra Ram Misir be deleted and in his place the names of his heirs, whose names and addresses mentioned above, be substituted. 4. I.A. No. 1658 of 2005 stands disposed of. W.P. (C) No. 1237 of 2005. 5. This application has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to set aside the order dated 7th January, 2005 passed by Sub-Judge-II, Lohardaga, in Execution Case No. 2 of 1999. 6. It appears from the records that originally Title Suit No. 201 of 1973 was decreed on 24th July, 1976. The aforesaid judgment and decree was challenged before this Court in appeal from original decree (F.A. No. 371 of 1980), which was decreed by this Court on 28th of January, 1995. Accordingly, decree was prepared. 6. It appears from the records that originally Title Suit No. 201 of 1973 was decreed on 24th July, 1976. The aforesaid judgment and decree was challenged before this Court in appeal from original decree (F.A. No. 371 of 1980), which was decreed by this Court on 28th of January, 1995. Accordingly, decree was prepared. Thereafter, LPA No. 47 of 1995 (R) having been dismissed, the decree passed in F.A. No. 371 of 1980 attained its finality and being binding upon the parties. Thereafter, the decree-holder-petitioner levied execution case in the year 1999 (Execution Case No. 2 of 1999) but because of one or other objection(s) raised by one or other parties, no final order has been passed in the said execution case thereby, decree has not yet been executed. It further appears that one of the parties had earlier moved before this Court against certain order passed in execution case and this Court vide its order dated 29th January, 2004 passed in Civil Revision No. 11 of 2004 observed that "it is not for the Executing Court to mechanically adjourn the proceedings every time allegedly for a detailed inquiry". From the impugned order dated 7th January, 2005 passed in Execution Case No. 2 of 1999, it appears that the learned Sub- Jude-II, Lohardaga, on an application preferred by respondent Maniur Rahman mechanically adjourned the case for another date. Such order being contrary to the earlier observation made by this Court in C.R. No. 11 of 2004, this Court not only deprecated the action of the concerned Court below but also set aside the said order dated 7th January, 2005 with a direction to the Court below to proceed with the execution case so that it may be disposed of immediately. 7. This writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction. 8. Let the Lower Court records be sent back through special messenger to the concerned Court below.