Allahabad High Court
SMT. HADISUNNISHAversusDEGREE COLLEGE ASSOCIATION AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The court held that there was no sufficient ground to set aside the order of 29‑03‑2019 and therefore disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue objections in the pending applications.
Summary
The petition filed by Smt. Hadisunnisha challenged the order dated 29‑03‑2019 that directed vacant possession of a disputed property to the decree holder in Execution Case No. 5 of 1981. The petitioner argued that the execution case had been transferred to another court while related miscellaneous applications filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC were not, thereby affecting her rights. The respondents produced copies of two applications dated 02‑05‑2019 seeking a stay of the possession order, which the petitioner had not contested. The High Court observed that the pending applications should be decided expeditiously by the lower court and found no merit in setting aside the 29‑03‑2019 order. Consequently, the petition was disposed, with liberty to the petitioner to file objections in the connected matters, and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the order directing vacant possession dated 29‑03‑2019 can be set aside on the ground that related miscellaneous applications were not transferred along with the execution case.
- Whether the pending applications for stay of the possession order affect the validity of the 29‑03‑2019 order.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to file further objections or applications in the connected matters.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 21 Rule 97
Subjects
- Article 227
- execution proceedings
- vacant possession
- transfer of case
- stay of execution
- CPC Order 21 Rule 97
- procedural irregularity
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3657 of 2019
Smt. Hadisunnisha
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Degree College Association And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Azad Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ravi Prakash Srivastava
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard Shri Azad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the record.
2. Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned
order dated 29.3.2019 passed by the respondent no. 1 in
Execution Case No. 5 of 1981.
3. Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for
Degree College Association has submitted that several
petitions have been filed against the order impugned and the
same have been disposed of by this Court. He has placed copy
of order dated 28.05.2019 passed in Matter under Article 227
No. 4438 of 2019 (Phool Chand Gupta and another v. Degree
College Association Musaffarganj and another).
4. The said judgement dated 28.5.2019 is quoted hereinunder:-
"Heard Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel for the applicants.
Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel appears for the
decree holder.
This application has been filed for setting aside the order
A227 No. 3657 of 2019
2
dated 29.3.2019, passed by the Ist Additional District Judge,
Mirzapur in Execution Case No. 5 of 1981 arising out of O.S.
No. 294 of 1968 (Degree College Association Vs. Shiv
Narain Pandey and others).
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is
that the applicants have filed objection under Order 21 Rule
97 CPC before the court below on 18.8.2018 which was
registered as Misc. Case No. 39 of 2018 and 37 of 2018
respectively. Pursuant to an application for transfer of the
case, the Execution Case No. 5 of 1981 was transferred from
the court of Special Judge (SC/ST), Mirzapur to the court of
Ist Additional District Judge, Mirzapur but, other
miscellaneous case including the aforesaid miscellaneous
application Nos. 37 and 39 of 2018 were not transferred and
the order dated 29.3.2019 was passed, whereby, the vacant
possession of the property in dispute was directed to be given
to the decree holder by issuance of memorandum of
possession. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
applicants that their valuable rights are affected.
However, it has been pointed out by Sri Ravi Prakash
Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
decree holder that the applications have been individually
filed by the applicants before the court below for staying of
the order impugned dated 29.3.2019. This fact is not rebutted
by the learned counsel for the applicants. Photo copies of
these two applications bearing date of 2.5.2019 have been
passed on to the Court by Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava which
are taken on record.
Since, the learned counsel for the applicants acknowledges
that the aforesaid applications are pending, it would be
appropriate to direct the court below to take expeditious
decision on the aforesaid two applications dated 2.5.2019.
This application is, accordingly, disposed of with the
aforesaid observations."
A227 No. 3657 of 2019
3
5. In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to
take a different view of the matter.
6. Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of with liberty
to the petitioner to file objection/application as has been done
by the petitioners therein in the other connected matters, which
have already been decided.
7. No order as to costs.
March 18, 2026 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…