Smt. Pratibha Singh and Madhusudan Prasad Singh Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi Prasad and Lakshmikant Prasad - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - nothing could be brought to my notice that the courts below have exercised their jurisdiction illegally or they failed to exercise any jurisdiction vested in them or there is any patent error in the said order. the order of the courts below are well discussed and passed on thorough consideration of all the relevant aspects.ordernarendra nath tiwari, j.1. in this civil revision application the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2005 passed by the learned judicial commissioner in miscellaneous civil appeal no. 15 of 2005 affirming the order dated 05.10.2005 passed by the sub judge ii, ranchi in misc. case no. 31 of 2005, which arose out of execution case no. 1 of 1983 a.2. the case has a chequered past. in the year 1981 a suit being title suit no. 125 of 1981 was filed by the opposite party praying for a decree for specific performance of the contract to sell eight kathas of land of plot no. 595 in his favour. the suit, on contest, was decreed by a judgment and decree dated 18.10.1982. the decree holder-opposite party then levied execution in execution case no. 1 of 1983 and deposited the balance consideration amount of rs. 37,001/-. the defendant-petitioner on the other hand preferred first appeal no. 27 of 1983(r). in the said appeal the proceeding of execution case no. 1 of 1983 was stayed. the said appeal filed in the then patna high court, ranchi bench being first appeal no. 27 of 1983(r) was ultimately dismissed. the defendant-petitioner then preferred l.p.a. no. 47 of 1990(r) which was also dismissed. he then filed special leave petition to appeal before the supreme court being s.l.p.(c) no. 5061 of 1990 corresponding to civil appeal no. 3151 of 1992 which was disposed of with certain directions and in accordance with the decree of the specific performance, the plaintiff-opposite party submitted a draft sale deed. the judgment debtor raised certain objections. the said objections were accepted by the court and the draft sale deed was, accordingly, modified and re-submitted. even after submission of the said modified sale deed, as desired by him, the judgment debtor-petitioner again raised objections, which led to another round of litigation up to the supreme court culminating into civil appeal no. 7891-92 of 2002. while disposing of the said appeal, the apex court, inter alia, directed the court below to expedite the execution case and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within four months. the sale deed was rectified in accordance with the directions of the supreme court. then the judgment debtor-petitioner filed an application praying for appointment of another pleader commissioner disputing the earlier report of the pleader commissioner regarding the boundary and dimension of the suit land shown by him. a case being misc. case no. 31 of 2005 was registered and both the parties were heard. the court below thoroughly considered all the points and observed that the questions raised by the petitioner are not tenable as the same were already decided by the earlier order of the court. the court below, further held that a writ application being w.p.(c) no. 5738 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner against the said order and as such there was no scope for reviewing the earlier order, as prayed for by him. the executing court, thus, rejected the said miscellaneous case. the petitioner then preferred an appeal assailing the said order before the judicial commissioner, ranchi which was registered as misc. appeal no. 15 of 2005. the appellate court, after hearing the parties and considering all the aspects, came to the conclusion that the miscellaneous case was deliberately engineered by the judgment debtor only for obstructing the decree holder from getting the fruit of the decree. he also observed that the draft sale deed was earlier modified as desired by the judgment debtor-petitioner by accepting his objections. the lower appellate court has also noticed the direction of the supreme court to expedite the execution case and on all those considerations, dismissed the misc. appeal no. 15 of 2005 by the impugned order.3. in this civil revision application against the said order, the petitioner has repeated the same factual grounds which have been thoroughly dealt with and considered by the courts below. nothing could be brought to my notice that the courts below have exercised their jurisdiction illegally or they failed to exercise any jurisdiction vested in them or there is any patent error in the said order. the order of the courts below are well discussed and passed on thorough consideration of all the relevant aspects. i find no error, illegality or want of jurisdiction in the impugned orders warranting any interference by this court. there is no merit in this civil revision application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. In this civil revision application the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2005 affirming the order dated 05.10.2005 passed by the Sub Judge II, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 31 of 2005, which arose out of Execution Case No. 1 of 1983 A.

2. The case has a chequered past. In the year 1981 a suit being Title Suit No. 125 of 1981 was filed by the opposite party praying for a decree for specific performance of the contract to sell eight kathas of land of Plot No. 595 in his favour. The suit, on contest, was decreed by a judgment and decree dated 18.10.1982. The decree holder-opposite party then levied execution in Execution Case No. 1 of 1983 and deposited the balance consideration amount of Rs. 37,001/-. The defendant-petitioner on the other hand preferred First Appeal No. 27 of 1983(R). In the said appeal the proceeding of Execution Case No. 1 of 1983 was stayed. The said appeal filed in the then Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench being First Appeal No. 27 of 1983(R) was ultimately dismissed. The defendant-petitioner then preferred L.P.A. No. 47 of 1990(R) which was also dismissed. He then filed Special Leave Petition to Appeal before the Supreme Court being S.L.P.(C) No. 5061 of 1990 corresponding to Civil Appeal No. 3151 of 1992 which was disposed of with certain directions and in accordance with the decree of the specific performance, the plaintiff-opposite party submitted a draft sale deed. The judgment debtor raised certain objections. The said objections were accepted by the Court and the draft sale deed was, accordingly, modified and re-submitted. Even after submission of the said modified sale deed, as desired by him, the judgment debtor-petitioner again raised objections, which led to another round of litigation up to the Supreme Court culminating into Civil Appeal No. 7891-92 of 2002. While disposing of the said appeal, the Apex Court, inter alia, directed the Court below to expedite the execution case and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within four months. The sale deed was rectified in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court. Then the judgment debtor-petitioner filed an application praying for appointment of another pleader commissioner disputing the earlier report of the pleader commissioner regarding the boundary and dimension of the suit land shown by him. A case being Misc. Case No. 31 of 2005 was registered and both the parties were heard. The Court below thoroughly considered all the points and observed that the questions raised by the petitioner are not tenable as the same were already decided by the earlier order of the Court. The Court below, further held that a writ application being W.P.(C) No. 5738 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner against the said order and as such there was no scope for reviewing the earlier order, as prayed for by him. The Executing Court, thus, rejected the said miscellaneous case. The petitioner then preferred an appeal assailing the said order before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 2005. The Appellate Court, after hearing the parties and considering all the aspects, came to the conclusion that the miscellaneous case was deliberately engineered by the judgment debtor only for obstructing the decree holder from getting the fruit of the decree. He also observed that the draft sale deed was earlier modified as desired by the judgment debtor-petitioner by accepting his objections. The Lower Appellate Court has also noticed the direction of the Supreme Court to expedite the execution case and on all those considerations, dismissed the Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 2005 by the impugned order.

3. In this civil revision application against the said order, the petitioner has repeated the same factual grounds which have been thoroughly dealt with and considered by the Courts below. Nothing could be brought to my notice that the courts below have exercised their jurisdiction illegally or they failed to exercise any jurisdiction vested in them or there is any patent error in the said order. The order of the Courts below are well discussed and passed on thorough consideration of all the relevant aspects. I find no error, illegality or want of jurisdiction in the impugned orders warranting any interference by this Court. There is no merit in this civil revision application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.