Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1365 (JHR)

Pradeep Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-11-22

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2023
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos.2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Revenue Karamchari. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the said respondents to implement the judgment dated 21st March, 1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Garhwa in Title Suit no.28 of 1993. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay the consequential benefits to the petitioner taking into consideration the initial date of appointment of the respondent nos.4 and 5 on the post of Revenue Karamchari in view of the fact that the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioner was decreed in his favour. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 3. The petitioner preferred a suit being Title Suit no.28 of 1993 in the court of Sub Judge, Garhwa against the State of through the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj (respondent no.3 herein) as well as against Rajnath Mistri and Surendra Kumar Vishwakarma (respondent nos. 4 & 5 herein) seeking following reliefs :- “(A) That it be adjudicated and declared that the plaintiff’s appointment to this post of Rajaswa Karamchari be made from the date along with other appointments and the defendant no.2 has no right to discriminate the plaintiff and refuse his appointment. (B) That it be adjudicated that the plaintiff be appointed to the post of Rajaswa Karamchari and the defendant no.2 be ordered to pay the salary and other allowances to the plaintiff till today. (C) That all costs of the sit be awarded to the plaintiff. (D) That any other relief or reliefs for which the plaintiff deems entitled be awarded to him.” 4. The said suit was allowed vide judgment dated 11th March, 2008 passed by the Sub Judge No.1, Garhwa in favour of the petitioner and against the contesting defendants with a declaration that he was entitled for appointment on the post of Revenue Karamchari. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred Execution Case no.07 of 2008 for execution of the said decree, however, the same was dismissed/dropped vide order dated 27th January, 2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred Execution Case no.07 of 2008 for execution of the said decree, however, the same was dismissed/dropped vide order dated 27th January, 2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division-I, Garhwa with following observations:- “On the basis of the above discussion I find that the decree passed in T.S. no.28/93 for the execution of which this Execution case no.7/08 has been filed does not direct the judgment-debtor to do any particular act or thing as no direction has been given against the judgment-debtor regarding the execution of the decree through the process of the court and it is the settled principle of law that the Executing Court can not travel beyond the decree. The decree-holder is free to move before the proper forum to seek his remedy as per the decree. Therefore, I find that this execution case is fit to be dismissed. It is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.” 5. It appears that subsequent to dismissal/dropping of the aforesaid execution case, the petitioner chose to prefer the present writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner had filed the said suit not only seeking declaration against the defendants (respondents herein) but had also prayed for consequential relief, however, the learned court below allowed the suit merely declaring that he was entitled for appointment to the post of Revenue Karamchari. Moreover, dismissal of Execution Case no.07 of 2008 by the executing court is also erroneous. 6. Even if the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken into consideration, this Court is of the view that the petitioner had the recourses available under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to challenge the judgment dated 11th March, 2008 passed in T.S. No.28 of 1993 and the decree prepared in terms thereof as well as the order dated 27th January, 2017 passed in Execution Case no.07 of 2008. The petitioner instead of taking the said recourses has in fact preferred the present writ petition seeking execution of the decree prepared in Title Suit No.28 of 1993, which is not permissible. By not taking the recourses available under law, the petitioner has faced the dead end for which he is only to be blamed. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner does not deserve any relief under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 7. The writ petition being not maintainable is, accordingly, dismissed.