Khalil Ahmed v. Dharmendra Kumar and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8917 of 2025 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

¶1Heard Md. Muzzamil I. Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Jigyasa Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶2Brief facts of the case are that execution proceeding was initiated at the instance of decree holder, which has registered as Execution Case No.49 of 2006. Petitioner's father Noor Mohammed had challenged the auction by filing Misc. Case No.12 of 2010 under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. in Execution Case No.49 of 2006 pending before Additional District Judge-II, Bulandshahr. After the death of petitioner's father the aforementioned Misc. Case No.12 of 2010 was dismissed in default on 20.11.2014. Against the order dated

20.11.2014, restoration application was filed which is stated to be pending for consideration. In pursuance of the auction taken place in the proceeding in favour of respondent no.1 an application was filed on behalf of respondent no.1 for getting possession over the auctioned property which was registered as Misc. Case No.195 of 2020 Dharmendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Meena and others). The Additional District Judge vide order dated 25.07.2024 directed the Ameen to take possession and hand over to respondent No.1. On behalf of petitioner an objection under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rule 101 C.P.C. was filed in Misc. Case No.195 of 2020, which was registered as Misc. Case No.188 of 2024. In the Misc. Case No.188 of 2024 objections were filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Additional District Judge Court no.14 Bulandshahr vide order dated 23.07.2025 rejected the objection of petitioner in Misc. Case Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Md. Muzzammil.I.Qureshi, Rumana Khatoon Counsel for Respondent(s) : Jigyasa Singh Khalil Ahmed .....Petitioner(s) Dharmendra Kumar And Another .....Respondent(s) No.188 of 2024 hence this petition for the following relief:

(i). Set aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act)/Additional District Judge, Court No.14 Bulandshahr rejecting the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. in R.C. Execution Case as well as entire illegal recovery of judgment debtor Moinuddin from the property of petitioner, although petitioner has no concern with the judgment debtor Moinuddin or his legal heirs, as is manifestly erroneous and unsustainable in law."

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that entire execution proceeding of Execution Case No.49 of 2006 is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. He further submitted that decree holder (Chandra Prakash Gupta) deliberately and falsely mentioned the petitioner's property (House No.455 now 572/1) as that of the judgment debtor Moinuddin. He further submitted that auction conducted on 1.2.2010 was without jurisdiction as the auction property does not belong judgment debtor but to the petiotner and his predecessor in interest, namely Noor Mohd, who purchased it through a registered sale deed dated 17.12.1993 from the lawful owner, respondent No.2 Smt. Asgari Begum. He further submitted that learned court below has committed manifest error of law in rejecting the objection under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rule 101 C.P.C. filed by petitioner in Misc. Case No.188 of 2024. He submitted that impugned proceedings are in clear violation of principle of natural justice as petitioner was not given fair opportunity to present his case. He further submitted that original objections filed by petitioner's father Noor Mohd were dismissed in default but restoration application is still pending, as such execution proceeding cannot proceed. He further submitted that identity of the property has been fraudulently manipulated as such entire execution proceeding is vitiated by error of law. He submitted that petitioner has been in continuous possession of the disputed property, which forms part of the property purchased by his father and was subsequently devolved upon him by registered will deed. He further submitted that ex parte order dated 6.9.2005 passed in Writ No. 56 of 1985 was obtained by suppression of material facts as such the same cannot be relied upon. He submitted that entire proceeding are illegal, as such impugned order dated 23.07.2025 should be set aside and petitioner's objection under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. in the Execution Case should be considered afresh.

¶4On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that objection under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. filed by petitioner has been rightly rejected under the impugned order considering the fact that objection to the same effect filed by petitioner's father was dismissed by the Execution Court. She submitted that even objection filed by respondent No.2-Smt. Asgari Begum was also rejected by execution court as such petitioner's objection cannot be entertained. She submitted that instant petiton should be dismissed.

¶5I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶6There is no dispute about the fact that objection under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Case No.188 of 2024 has been rejected by Execution Court vide order dated 23.07.2025.

¶7In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, findings of fact recorded by Execution Court under the impugned order will be relevant which is as under:- न्यायालयः िवशेष न्यायाधीश (आवश्यक वस्तु अिधिनयम)/ अपर िजला न्यायाधीश, न्याय क्ष संख्या-14, बुलन्दशहर उपिस्थत धीरें्श कुमार -II (एच.जे.एस.) आई.डी. नंबर UP6145्ऺ कीणर् िसिवल वाद संख्या-188/2024 CNR No. UPBU010080662024 खलील अहमद उ्ा करीब कस्बा व परगना व तहसील िशकारपुर िजला बुलन्दशहर.....अपीलकतार् बनाम

¶11. धमरॏन््श कुमार पु्ऴ श्यामिबहारी िनवासी मौहल्ला मुफ्तीवाड़ा, कस्बा वा परगना वा तहसील- िशकारपुर, िजला-बुलन्दशहर।

¶21. ्शीमती. अशगरी बेगम पत्नी स्वगर्य रहमतुल्ला, िनवासी मौहल्ला मुफ्तीवाड़ा, कस्बा या परगना या तहसील-िशकारपुर, िजला-बुलंदशहर िनणर्य ..........................................................................................................................................

¶3उभयप्ष ों ाके ािव्ष ानाअिधव्व ागणाके ातकर् ाकोासुनाातथाातलबशुदााप्ऴ ावलीाएवंा्ऺ कीणर्ा िसिवलाकीाप्ऴ ावलीापराउपलब् धासाष् या/ सबूतों ाकाासम् यक् ारू पासेाअवलोकनािकया।

¶4प्ऴ ावलीा काा अवलोकना करनेा सेा स् प्ि ा हाै िका ्ऺ स् तुता ्ऺ करणा मेंा लघुबादा इजराया संख् या -49/2006 के ामाध् यमासेािविवद्ष स् तासंपि्त ाकीाकु कर् ाकरनेाके ाआदेशापािरतािकयेागये।ा्ऺ स् तुता आपि्त ाके ामाध् यमासेाआपि्त कतार्ाकाामुख् यारू पासेायहाकथनाहाै िकाउसनेा्ऺ श् नगतासंपि्त ाजोािका एकाखालीाप् लॉटाथा, उसकााबैनामााआपि्त कतार्ाके ािपताानूरामौहम् मदानेािवप्ष ीासंख् या-2 असगरीा बेगमासेा90 वगर्गजाकाािदनांक-17.12.1993 कोामु. 22 हजारारू पयेामेंाकराािलयााथाातथाा शेषाभागापरा्श ीमतीाअसगरीाबेगमास् वयंामािलकावाकािबजारहीातथाा्ऺ ाथर् ाके ािपताानेास् वयंाके ा ्ष ारााखरीदीागयीाआराजीापरामकानाकाािनमार्णाकराािलया।ा्ऺ श् ्श गतासंपि्त ाआपि्त कतार्ाके ािपताा नूरामौहम् मदासेाएकापंजीकृ तावसीयतािदनांक-17.12.1998 के ामाध् यमासेाआपि्त कतार्ाकोादेा दी।ािवप्ष ीाचं्श ्ऺ काशागुप् ताानेामोईनु?द ीनािखलाफाहजार्ाइस् तेमालीामु. 1,64,216/- रू पयेाबकायेा कीावसूलीाहते ुाएकाइजरायासं.-49/2006 योिजताकी।ाउ्व ाइंजरायामेंामोईनु?द ीना(ज.े िड.) कीा माताा्श ीमतीाअसगरीाके ामकानाकोािदनांका01.02.2010 कोामौके ापराहीानीलामीाकीाकायर्वाहीा अमलामेंालायीागयी, लेिकना्ऴ ुिटवशाआपि्त कतार्ाके ामकानाकोाभीाअसगरीाकाामकानासमझकरा नीलामीाकीाकायर्वाहीागलतारू पासेाकरादीागयी, जबिका्ऺ ाथर् ाके ाउ्व ामकानाकोामोईनु?द ीनाकीा संपि्त ा मानतेा हु एा जोा नीलामीा कीा कायर्वाहीा कीा थी, वहा अपनेा आपा मेंा गलता वा शून् या थी।ा आपि्त कतार्ा के ा ्ष ाराा अपनीा आपि्त ा के ा समथर्ना मेंा िवप्ष ीा संख् याा 2 असगरीा बेगमा के ा ्ष ाराा आपि्त कतार्ाके ािपतााखलीलाअहमदाके ाप्ष ामेंािनष् पािदतापंजीकृ तािव्व यप्ऴ ाकीा्ऺ मािणता्ऺ िता ्ऺ स् तुताकीातथाासाथाहीापंजीकृ तावसीयतनामााजोाआपि्त कतार्ाके ाप्ष ामेंानूरामौहम् मदा्ष ाराा िनष् पािदतािकयाागयााह,ै उसकीा्ऺ िताभीा्ऺ स् तुताकीागयीा।ाइसके ाअितिर्व ानीलामीागृहकरा िनधार् णासूचीा1989-90, 1993-94 भीाप्ऴ ावलीापरादािखलाकीागयीाह।ै ा्ऺ ाथर् ा/ आपि्त कतार्ा ्ष ाराा्ऺ स् तुतािकयेागयेािकसीाभीादस् तावेजासेायहातथ् यास् थािपतानहीं ाहाै िका्ऺ श् नगताकु क?् शुदाा संपि्त ाइसीासंपि्त ाकााभागाह।ै ाइसके ाअितिरकायहाभीाउल् लेखाकरनााआवश् यकाहोगाािकाइसके ा पूवर्ावहाइसके ासंबंधामेंाअसगरीाकीाओरासेाचं्श ्ऺ काशागुप् तााके ािवरू ्ध ादािखलाआपि्त ािविवधावादा संख् या-585/2007 आदेशािदनांिकत-24.01.2009 के ामाध् यमासेािनरस् तािकयााजााचुकााह।ै ा इसके ाअलावाािवप्ष ीासंख् या-2 असगरीाकाापु्ऴ ाअसगराअलीाकीाओरासेाचं्श ्ऺ काशाके ािवरू ्ध ा उ्व ाइजराजाके ासंबंधामेंादािखलाआपि्त ा्ऺ कीणर्ावादासंख् या-27/2009 भीाआदेशािदनांिकता

30.01.2010 के ामाध् यमासेािनरस् तािकयााजााचुकााह।ै ा्ऺ कीणर्ावादासं-27/2013 के ािवरू ्ध ा पुन?वलोकना ्ऺ ाथर्नाप्ऴ ा सं.-536/2015 भीा आदेशा िदनांिकत-20.05.2019 के ा माध् यमा सेा िनरस् तािकयााजााचुकााह।ै ाइसके ाअितिर्व ाउ्व ाकु क?् ाकीाकायर्वाहीाके ासंबंधामेंाअस् थायीा्ि ादेशा हते ुािसिवलािविवधावादासंख् या-498/2019, खलीलाअहमदाबनामाधम?ल्श ामेंाआपि्त कतार्ाकीाओरा सेा्ऺ स् तुतािकयेागयेा्ऺ ाथर्नाप्ऴ ाकोा22.01.2020 के ामाध् यमासेापूवर्ामेंािनरस् तािकयााजााचुकााह।ै ा ऐसीादशाामेंा्ऺ स् तुता्ऺ कीणर्ाके ासंबंधामेंाआपि्त कतार्ाखलीलाअहमदाकीाओरासेा्ऺ स् तुताकीागयीा आपि्त ाबलहीनाहोनेाके ाकारणाखािरजाहोनेायोग् याह।ै । आदेश

¶5्ऺ ाथर् /आपि्त कतार्ाकीाओरासेा्ऺ स् तुता्ऺ कीणर्ािसिवलासंख् या-188 सन्ा2024, खलीलाअहमदा खानाबनामाधम?ल्श ाकु माराआिदािनरस् ताकीाजातीाह।ै

¶6इसाआदेशाकीाएका्ऺ ितातलबशुदााअिभलेखाके ासाथािव्ष ानािवचारणान् यायालयाकोाअिवलम् बा ्ऺेिषत की जाये।

¶7्ऺकीणर् िसिवल वाद की प्ऴावली िनयमानुसार दािखल दफ्तर हो। िदनांक-23.07.2025 (धीरें्श कुमार पीय)

िवशेष न्यायाधीश (ई.सी एक्ट)/ अपर िजला न्यायाधीश, कोटर् संख्या-14, बुलन्दशहर। जे.ओ. कोड सं.-6145

¶8The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by the Execution Court while deciding the Misc. Case No.188 of 2024 as quoted above demonstrate that the objection filed on behalf of petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. is total abuse of process of law as the objection filed by petitioner's father was dismissed in default and restoration application is stated to be pending before the court concerned. The impugned order further demonstrate that respondent No.2 Smt. Asgari Begum has also filed objection against the decree holder (Chandra Prakash Gupta) which was rejected vide order dated 24.12.2009, 30.01.2010 and 20.05.2019, as such filing of objection under Order 21 Rule 97 at the instance of the petitioner after rejection of the objection of the petitioners' father is total abuse of the process of law.

¶9Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as finding recorded by execution Court there is no scope for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed in the execution proceeding.

¶10The instant petition is dismissed accordingly. August 18, 2025 PS*/Vandana (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad