Jharkhand High Court
Amit Kumar Sinha Aged About 50 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy … on 23 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:16476 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 525 of 2025
1. Amit Kumar Sinha aged about 50 years, son of late Ramanuj Prasad
2. Meera Prasad, aged about 76 years, wife of late Ramanuj Prasad
3. Samir Kumar, aged about 52 years, son of late Ramanuj Prasad
4. Juhi Rani, aged about 40 years, daughter of late Ramanuj Prasad
All are residents of Fair filed Bunglow, PTC Road, Hazaribag, P.O. and
P.S. Sadar, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
......... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, P.O. and P.S.
Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh, State-Jharkhand
2. Rewa Singh, wife of Jitendra Narayan Singh, resident of Laxmi Niwas
Palace, Resident of Padma, P.O. and P.S. Padma, District-Hazaribagh
3. Vaibhav Narayan Singh, son of late Jitendra Narayan Singh, resident
of Padma, P.O. and P.S. Padma, District-Hazaribagh
4. Saurabh Narayan Singh, son of late Jitendra Narayan Singh, resident
of Laxmi Niwas Palance, Resident of Padma, P.O. and P.S. Padma,
District-Hazaribagh
....... Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate
For the State :-Mr. Kumar Pawan, A.C. to S.C. Mines-II
For the O.P. No.3 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Deo, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. No.4 : Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate
Mr. Shaurya Dwivedi, Advocate
Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, Advocate
..........
03/Dated: 23/06/2025
Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Kumar Pawan, learned counsel for the Stater, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for
the O.P. No.3 and Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel for the O.P. No.4.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
for quashing the entire proceeding of Execution Case No. 155 of 2016, pending in the
Court of learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division)-III, Hazaribagh.
3. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that execution case may kindly be quashed on the ground that Khata No. 508, 973
area 0.96 acres was subject matter of the said execution case. He further submits that
for the said property in question one title suit was instituted by the opposite parties
1
( 2025:JHHC:16476 )
herein being Title Suit No. 80 of 2006 which was dismissed by judgment dated
24.06.2011 and against the said opposite parties herein preferred title appeal being
Title Appeal No. 51 of 2011 which was allowed vide judgment dated 04.03.2016. He
further submits that thereafter present execution case has been instituted. He fairly
submits that second appeal preferred by the petitioners herein being Second Appeal
No. 171 of 2016 was dismissed for default for that C.M.P. has been filed which is still
pending. He further submits that prior to all these proceeding the petitioners herein
have instituted tittle suit being Title Suit No. 116 of 2004 which was dismissed.
Thereafter the petitioners filed First Appeal No. 147 of 2011 before the High Court
and in view of pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned court the said case was
transferred to the District & Sessions Judge and numbered as Civil Appeal No.
10/2020 which is still pending. He submits that in the light of Section 10 of C.P.C. the
learned executing court is having power to go slowly. He further submits that
principle of rest judicata is also involved. He further submits that the in the suit
property there is registered company office of M/s Sathsahi Udyog Private Limited in
view of that Section 430 of Company Act is attracted. On these backgrounds, he
submits that this petition may kindly be allowed and execution case may kindly be
quashed.
4. Learned counsels for the opposite parties oppose the prayer and
submit that even the second appeal has been dismissed and thereafter execution case
has rightly been instituted. He further submits that there is no stay of any higher
court in view of that this petition is not maintainable and only prayer is made of
quashing the entire proceeding of execution case. He further submits that this petition
under Article 227 of Constitution of India is misconceived one.
5. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties it is
an admitted position that without filing any objection under the relevant provisions
of C.P.C. straightway this petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India for quashing of the entire execution proceeding and in view of that this petition
is misconceived one. The petitioner are having the remedy of filing the objection
2
( 2025:JHHC:16476 )
before the learned court and without availing that remedy this petition has been filed.
Further the decree has already been affirmed up to the second appeal by the High
Court and execution case is pending for execution of decree. Opposite parties
instituted Title Suit No. 80 of 2006 which was dismissed by judgment dated
24.06.2011 and against that said opposite parties herein preferred Title Appeal No.
51 of 2011 which was allowed vide judgment dated 04.03.2016. The petitioners
herein preferred Second Appeal No. 171 of 2016 which was dismissed for default for
that C.M.P. has been filed which is still pending. Petitioners instituted Title Suit No.
116 of 2004 which was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioners filed First Appeal No.
147 of 2011 before the High Court and in view of pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned
court the said case was transferred to the District & Sessions Judge and numbered
as Civil Appeal No. 10/2020 which is still pending.
6. In view of above background it is crystal clear that the petitioners
are having remedy however, not under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
7. In view of above no relief can be extended to the petitioners.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. Interim
order dated 22.05.2025 is vacated.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
3