← Library
Patna High CourtC.Misc./53/2016dismissed

Bhushan Prasad v. Birendra Kumar Verma And ORS

2016-08-02Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo2 pages

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.53 of 2016 (2) dt.02-08-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.53 of 2016 ====================================================== Bhushan Prasad .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Birendra Kumar Verma & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amar Nath Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 02-08-2016 Heard learned counsel, Mr. Amar Nath Singh, appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. R.P. Singh, appearing for the respondents.

2.

Perused the order dated 03.02.2016 passed by the Sub-Judge-IInd Nalanda at Biharshariff in Execution Case No. 02 of 2013.

3.

It appears that the partition suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent.

It was decreed preliminarily and subsequently, final decree was passed. For execution of the final decree, this Execution Case No. 02 of 2013 was filed. In this execution case, the present petitioner filed petition for dismissing the execution case on the ground that no notice was ever served on him in the title suit. Therefore, the execution case may be dismissed. The learned court below has rejected this application. 4.

So far this ground, which was raised before the

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.53 of 2016 (2) dt.02-08-2016 executing court and is being raised before this Court in this miscellaneous application is concerned, it is pure question of fact and can only be examined in a properly constituted proceeding. If in fact, no notice was served, the petitioner could have filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. but certainly, the executing court has no jurisdiction to decide this application while executing the final decree.

5.

Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction and, therefore, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) brajesh/- U