Surendra Kumar Tiwari Th:legal Heairs Vinod Kumar Tiwari Vs. Chintaman Tiwari - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1049796
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnFeb-20-2013
AppellantSurendra Kumar Tiwari Th:legal Heairs Vinod Kumar Tiwari
RespondentChintaman Tiwari
Excerpt:
1 w.p.no.20390/2012 20.2.2013 shri amit garg, learned counsel for the petitioner. challenging an order passed by the learned executing court rejecting an objection filed by the petitioner under order 21 rule 97 cpc, this writ petition has been filed. a decree has been passed for eviction of the petitioner. the decree has attained finality and during the execution proceeding petitioner claim that in the house in question petitioner has spent a sum of rs.2 lacs which should be refunded to him. the learned court below found that it does not form part of the decree and on the ground that amount cannot be refunded in execution proceedings, the application is rejected. while rejecting the application it is held that decree was passed in the year 2007 and the application is passed only to stall the execution proceedings. keeping in view the reasons given by the court below and justification given for rejection of the application, i see no reason to interfere into the matter in this writ petition under article 227 of the constitution. accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge mrs.mishra
Judgment:

1 W.P.No.20390/2012 20.2.2013 Shri Amit Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Challenging an order passed by the learned Executing Court rejecting an objection filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, this writ petition has been filed.

A decree has been passed for eviction of the petitioner.

The Decree has attained finality and during the execution proceeding petitioner claim that in the house in question petitioner has spent a sum of Rs.2 Lacs which should be refunded to him.

The learned Court below found that it does not form part of the decree and on the ground that amount cannot be refunded in execution proceedings, the application is rejected.

While rejecting the application it is held that decree was passed in the year 2007 and the application is passed only to stall the execution proceedings.

Keeping in view the reasons given by the Court below and justification given for rejection of the application, I see no reason to interfere into the matter in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Mrs.mishra