CR No.266 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.266 of 2009 Date of Decision: 4.08.2009 Lachhman Dass & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. Jafru & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.U.K.Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rajnish Narula, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.11.2008 passed by the learned Executing Court allowing application moved by the applicant-respondent No.1 to be impleaded as a party. The applicant/respondent sought to be impleaded as a party being the legal heir of Laxmi Devi, who was party to the civil suit when preliminary decree was passed. Learned trial court, therefore, held that the applicant was successor-in-interest of Laxmi Devi, who was party to the suit CR No.266 of 2009 2 originally filed and therefore, he was necessary party, and allowed the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Executing Court wrongly recorded, that Smt.Laxmi Devi was party in the suit at the initial stage. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she was never party to the suit, therefore, her legal heirs could not be brought on record as party in the execution petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 produced on record certified copy of the decree sheet originally passed, in a suit titled Munshi Ram Vs. Bicha Ram in which Laxmi Devi is shown to be plaintiff No.V. Laxmi Devi being a party to the original suit, her legal heirs, therefore, are necessary party in the execution application,. No fault can be found with the order passed by the learned executing court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K.Sharma) 4.08.2009 Judge rp