Allahabad High Court
PRAYAG NARAYAN SHARMA (SINCE DECEASED) AND 2 OTHERSversusPREM BIHARI SHARMA (SINCE DECEASED) AND 8 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The High Court held that the warrant order must be set aside and the lower court should decide the pending recall application without unnecessary adjournments.
Summary
The petition arose from a decree of possession dated 18‑01‑1993 in a suit filed in 1984, which was appealed and later dismissed in 2013. A restoration application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC remained pending, while an execution case was filed in 2021 and an objection was raised in 2023. The civil court, relying on an erroneous compliance report under General Rule 89A, issued a warrant of possession on 19‑02‑2026, prompting the judgment debtors to file a recall application. The petitioners sought to set aside the warrant order and to have the pending recall application decided. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, directed the lower court to decide the recall application without granting unnecessary adjournments, without addressing the merits of the underlying possession dispute.
Issues considered
- Whether the warrant of possession dated 19‑02‑2026 should be set aside pending the decision of the recall application.
- Whether the lower court must decide the pending recall application without further adjournments.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 41 Rule 19
- General Rules (Civil), 1957 — s. Rule 89A
Subjects
- Article 227
- Civil Procedure
- Execution
- Recall application
- Warrant of possession
- Restoration order
- Supervisory jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6285 of 2026
Prayag Narayan Sharma (Since Deceased) And 2
Others .....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Prem Bihari Sharma (Since Deceased) And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bharat Jain, Peeyush Kumar Pathak,
Prateeyush Kumar Pathak
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Prateeyush Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the defendant-
petitioner-judgment debtors.
2. In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not
being issued to the respondent-plaintiff-decree holders.
3. The case of the defendant-petitioner-judgment debtors is that the original
plaintiff-respondent late Prem Bihari Sharma instituted a suit being O.S. No.
343 of 1984 before the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Mathura
seeking a decree of possession over the immovable property which came to
be decreed on 18.01.1993 thereafter a Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1993 was
preferred by the petitioner. In the said appeal, an interim order was passed,
however, on 19.02.2013, the appeal was dismissed for non presence and a
restoration application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC came to be preferred
and in the meantime, several legal heirs of the deceased decree holder died.
The restoration application being Misc. Case No 22 of 2013 is pending. That
despite the restoration application remain pending an Execution Case No. 13
of 2021 came to be preferred by the decree holders to which objection was
filed by the petitioner-judgment debtors on 20.03.2023 and an application
was also filed and on 06.02.2026, the case was transferred from the Court of
learned Civil Judge (S.D.)-II to the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)-Vth and on
16.02.2026 the learned court directed the office to inform the parties with
regard to the same and on 18.02.2026 an incorrect report came to be marked
by the office that compliance of General Rule 89A of the General Rules
(Civil), 1957 has been done. On the next date i.e. 19.02.2026, the Civil
A227 No. 6285 of 2026
2
Judge (S.D.) Vth relying upon the report passed the order that compliance be
done and issued warrant of possession against the petitioner-judgment
debtors. The petitioner-judgment debtors thereafter preferred a recall
application on 19.02.2026.
4. Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated
19.02.2026 and to decide the recall application dated 23.03.2026 and
19.02.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the recall application
is pending then the same is to be decided.
6. Considering the submission so made across the bar, the petition stands
disposed of requiring the court below to decide the recall application which
is stated to be pending on the next date fixed and, in case, it is not decided
on the next date, on the other date so fixed without granting unnecessary
adjournments.
7. Needless to point out that this Court has not adjudicated on the merits of
the matter.
May 6, 2026
Rajesh
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…