Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sushila Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 June, 2014
Writ Petition No. 7965/2014
25.06.2014
Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Adv for respondents.
Heard on the question of admission.
On behalf of the petitioner, decree holder, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ against the authority of respondent no. 2 for the following reliefs:-
1. To command the respondents by issuing writ of Mandamus thereby commanding the respondents to register the sale deed Annexure P-5 as presented before the respondent no.2 and to receive the registration charges as per value set forth in the sale deed.
2. To issue appropriate writ/writ(s), order/order(s), in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. To grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. To award the cost of this petition.
Initially after taking me through the petition as well as documents placed on record, the petitioner's counsel argued that on the basis of some agreement to sell the petitioner entered to purchase the property in dispute from the judgment debtor of the decree.
The petitioner's counsel argued that in a regular Civil Suit No. 40-A/05 by the court of 6th Additional District Judge, Bhopal, the decree for specific performance was passed on dated 25.11.2011. Subsequent to it, the judgment debtor did not comply the terms of the decree and executed the alleged registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner then the petitioner filed the execution proceeding to execute such decree against the judgment debtor. In such execution proceeding, the executing court has directed to execute the sale deed through such executing court as the judgement debtor did not turn up for executing the same. Pursuant to such a draft of sale deed was prepared and signed by the Presiding Officer of such Executing Court through Nazir of such court by authorising him to get it registered to the office of respondent no.2, Dy. Registrar to get it registered.
As per submission of the petitioner's counsel even after producing such document by Nazir in the office of respondent no.2, Sub Registrar, the same has not been registered by such respondent. On asking in this regard, no information is being supplied by the Sub Registrar.
At this stage, on asking the counsel whether satisfaction of the impugned decree under the execution proceeding has been recorded by the Executing Court, on which she said that she is not in a position to make any statement in this regard, but probably such execution proceeding must be pending because the directed sale deed has not been registered in the office of Sub Registrar till today. Again on asking that in view of availability of alternate forum of Executing Court to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for issuing appropriate direction to the Sub Registrar to register the aforesaid document, then how this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of Section 47 of IPC, such prayer of the petitioners could be entertained by the Executing Court. As per such provision of Section 47 of the CPC, the question relating to execution, satisfaction and discharge of any decree passed in the civil original suit could be considered and adjudicated by the Executing Court in the execution proceedings and not otherwise in any other proceedings, on which instead to argue further, the petitioner's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed with liberty to file an appropriate application with respect of the dispute raised in this petition either in the aforesaid pending executing proceeding or separately under Section 47 of the CPC before such Executing court with further prayer for appropriate direction to such Executing Court that on filing such proceeding, the same be considered and decided on its own merits in accordance with the procedure within 30 days from the date of the filing the same.
In view of aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits of the question raised in this petition only on the question of entertainability as the alternate forum is available to the petitioners, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed by extending a liberty to the petitioner to file the aforesaid any of the applications for redressal of his dispute raised in this petition before the Executing Court within 30 days and pursuant to it, the Executing Court is directed that on filing such an application within the aforesaid period, the same be considered and adjudicated in accordance with the procedure prescribed within further 30 days and on such consideration, if the Executing Court comes to conclusion that some direction is required to the respondent no.2, Sub Registrar, then the same be issued within further 15 days.
There shall no order as to cost.
C c as per rules.
(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge bks