C.R. No. 6258 of 2008 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6258 of 2008 Date of Decision : 10.08.2010 M/s Krishan Chand Raj Kumar, Iron Merchants, Kotkapura, District Faridkot & another .......... Petitioners Versus Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 27.9.2008 and 3.11.2008, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 35, Order XXI Rule 97 and 99 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands dismissed. The objections were filed by the judgment debtor M/s Krishan Chand Raj Kumar and Faqir Chand Bajaj on 20.9.2008. The suit filed by the Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. was decreed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Faridkot for possession of land measuring 286 Sq. yards out of khasra No. 1318 including shop. The objections filed by the judgment debtor on 5.9.2007 C.R. No. 6258 of 2008 -2- ***** were dismissed, and warrants of possession were ordered to be issued, as per the decree. The objections filed by the petitioners were, that the judgment and decree dated 8.8.1990 is illegal, null and void because the property in question was in possession of the objector firm M/s Krishan Chand Raj Kumar. That the Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. was dissolved vide notification dated 29.7.2003. One of the JD died on 1.12.1994, leaving behind Faqir Chand, Raj Kumar and Pusha Devi. They claimed themselves to be the legal heirs of Sh. Krishan Chand in the execution application. It was pleaded, that the shop at the spot was under the possession of objector firm. The decree was said to be vague. It was pleaded, that the suit filed was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as remaining part of the land was in possession of the Municipal Council Kotkapura. It was also pleaded, that the learned Addl. District Judge, Faridkot had held, that the suit property was not used as burial ground by the Mohammedans. The objectors also claimed to have become owners by way of adverse possession. The learned executing Court held, that Faqir Chand objector No.2, through whom objections were filed, was none-else then son of JD NO.2 Krishan Chand. He also appeared as witness of the defendants during the trial of the suit. The learned executing Court found, that all the objections raised, were raised in the suit, but were rejected by the learned Court. The learned executing Court further held, that even C.R. No. 6258 of 2008 -3- ***** though Krishan Chand had died, but no such plea was raised before the learned appellate Court or the High Court. The learned executing Court further held, that the objections raised by the objector were not available in the execution application, as they were judgment debtors. In appeal, the judgment passed by the learned executing Court was upheld. Mr. P.S. Khurana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended, that the impugned order can not be sustained, as the decree was passed against Krishan Chand and Raj Kumar, whereas the property was in possession of M/s Krishan Chand Raj Kumar, therefore, there was no decree against the firm. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that Jagir Singh was partner of the firm, therefore, was not bound by the decree passed against Raj Kumar and Krishan Chand. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner further was, that the learned executing court could not have summarily rejected the objections, without letting the parties to lead evidence. On consideration, In find no merit in this contention. M/s Krishan Chand and Raj Kumar is unregistered firm. Once its partner Krishan Chand and Raj Kumar were made party the firm can not file objections by treating it to be a different party. Sh. Jagir Singh is claiming his right through Sh. Krishan Chand, being his legal representative on account of his death. The legal representative can not take a new plea, but can only step into C.R. No. 6258 of 2008 -4- ***** the shoes of the person he represents. Once these very objections taken in the suit by Krishan Chand and Raj Kumar, and were dismissed, it was not open to the firm which is non-else but the judgment debtor to maintain objections by claiming to be third party. The learned executing Court was not required to frame any issue on the objections of the judgment debtor, specially when these very objections were rejected by the learned Court while decreeing the suit, as it is well settled law, that the executing Court can not go behind the decree, being bound by the decree. For the reasons stated, there is no merit in this revision petition, which is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. 10.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE