Jharkhand High CourtDeepak Kumar & Anr vs Kumari Rupendra Kaur Raj @ Sha on 18 January, 2010Author:R. K. MerathiaBench:Ramesh Kumar MerathiaIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            W.P. (C) No. 2997 of 2009.
                                       ---
                1. Deepak Kumar
                2. Pradeep Kumar       ...     ...     ...   ... ...               Petitioners

                                        Versus

                Kumari Rupendra Kaur
                Raj alias Shalu    ...     ...      ...    ...   ...   ...   Respondent
                                         ---
                CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA
                                         ---
                For the Petitioners: M/s. V. Shivnath, Senior Advocate and Arun
                                             Kumar, Advocate
                                         ---

2. 18.1.2010.         This writ petition has been filed against the order dated
                4.5.2009 passed by Sub Judge-II, Hazaribagh in Misc. Case No. 48
                of 2009 (arising out of Execution Case No. 47 of 2007) rejecting
                the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners undersection 47of
                the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the C.P.C").Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel appearing for the
                petitioners submitted that the dispute of relationship of landlord
                and tenant between the parties was decided in favour of the
                plaintiff landlord and it was confirmed up to the High Court and
                became final, but so far as part decree is concerned, it is not
                clarified as to which portion of the suit premises, the judgment
                debtors-petitioners have been directed to vacate.It appears that Schedule A of the plaint consists of Stall No.
                16 in two parts bearing Holding Nos. 190 and 191 (old and
                new no.248 and 249) Area 15' x 30' and 15' x 30' Total 900 sq.ft.
                the full description of which has been given in the schedule. The
                decree was allowed in part, as the arrear of rent from September,
                1998 to 16.1.1999 was not allowed, which has no relation with the
                suit premises-Schedule A.
                      After going through the records, it would appear that the
                judgment debtors-petitioners are raising frivolous objections only
                with a view to delay the execution proceedings.I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order in
                exercise of my supervisory power underarticle 227of the
                Constitution of India and, accordingly, this writ petition is
                dismissed. However, no costs.(R. K. Merathia, J)
  AKS Cp.2.