Deepak Kumar & Anr vs Kumari Rupendra Kaur Raj @ Sha on 18 January, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 2]

Jharkhand High Court

Deepak Kumar & Anr vs Kumari Rupendra Kaur Raj @ Sha on 18 January, 2010

Bench: Ramesh Kumar Merathia

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            W.P. (C) No. 2997 of 2009.
                                       ---
                1. Deepak Kumar
                2. Pradeep Kumar       ...     ...     ...   ... ...               Petitioners

                                        Versus

                Kumari Rupendra Kaur
                Raj alias Shalu    ...     ...      ...    ...   ...   ...   Respondent
                                         ---
                CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA
                                         ---
                For the Petitioners: M/s. V. Shivnath, Senior Advocate and Arun
                                             Kumar, Advocate
                                         ---

2. 18.1.2010

. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 4.5.2009 passed by Sub Judge-II, Hazaribagh in Misc. Case No. 48 of 2009 (arising out of Execution Case No. 47 of 2007) rejecting the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the C.P.C").

Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was decided in favour of the plaintiff landlord and it was confirmed up to the High Court and became final, but so far as part decree is concerned, it is not clarified as to which portion of the suit premises, the judgment debtors-petitioners have been directed to vacate.

It appears that Schedule A of the plaint consists of Stall No. 16 in two parts bearing Holding Nos. 190 and 191 (old and new no.248 and 249) Area 15' x 30' and 15' x 30' Total 900 sq.ft. the full description of which has been given in the schedule. The decree was allowed in part, as the arrear of rent from September, 1998 to 16.1.1999 was not allowed, which has no relation with the suit premises-Schedule A. After going through the records, it would appear that the judgment debtors-petitioners are raising frivolous objections only with a view to delay the execution proceedings.

I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of my supervisory power under article 227 of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.

(R. K. Merathia, J) AKS Cp.2.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court