CR No.2252 of 2009 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2252 of 2009 (O & M) Date of decision: 22.03.2010 Neeraj Kumar Jain and others .. Petitioners Versus Paramjit Kaur and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate with Mr.Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Swarn Sandhir, Advocate for the respondent No.1 . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against order whereby issues have been framed on objections, which have been filed by respondents No.1 to 3. The petitioner had filed a Civil Suit against Nachhattar Kaur and her two sons for specific performance of an agreement to sell land in which all three of the defendants were joint owners. During the pendency of the suit, Nachhattar Kaur died. An application was made by the petitioners stating that the two sons were already parties in the suit and that as per their knowledge, Nachhattar Kaur had one daughter Charanjeet Kaur also and thereby pleaded her as LRs of Nachhattar Kaur. The two sons came forward to state that by a Will, Nachhattar Kaur had bequeathed her 1/3rd share in their favour and also presented before the Court three affidavits purported to have been signed by the three sisters whereby also the three sisters had allegedly accepted CR No.2252 of 2009 (O & M) ::2:: the Will. Consequently, the two brothers were impleaded as LRs of Nachhattar Kaur. Ultimately, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, the three sisters filed a Civil Suit challenging the entire transaction. The said Civil Suit is still pending. In the meantime, since brothers also did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed as per the decree, the petitioners filed execution. In the execution also, originally, three sisters moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as LRs but the same was rejected by the Executing Court, which order has become final. Thereater, the sisters moved objections taking the same grounds as were took by them in the Civil Suit which they had filed. The learned Executing Court has decided to try the said objections and has framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the objectors are legal heirs of deceased Nachhattar Kaur and having 3/5th share out of 1/3rd share of Nachhattar Kaur ? OPO (2) Whether the decree under execution is collusive decree between DHs and JDs No.2 and 3 ? OPO (3) Whether Nachhattar Kaur had executed Will dated 4.1.2005 in favour of JDs No.2 and 3 ? OPDH (4) If issue No.2 is proved whether the objectors are bound by judgment and decree dated 6.5.2006? OPDH Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the respondents No.1 to 3 cannot be allowed to sabotage the decree which was obtained by the petitioners. He has further aruged that even on facts, the claim set up by the three sisters, is not valid. In my opinion, the question of the validity or otherwise of the claim of the three sisters, would be determined by the Court where they have filed the suit. However in the present case, it would not be in the CR No.2252 of 2009 (O & M) ::3:: interest of justice, to allow them to thwart the decree obtained by the petitioners. Of course, any benefit which the petitioners may get in the execution, would be subject to the decision of the Civil Suit, which has been filed by the three sisters in respect of decree obtained by the petitioners. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the impugned order would cause much greater prejudice to the petitioners than it would cause to the respondents. Consequently, this revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the objections filed by the respondents No.1 to 3 are dismissed leaving them, however, at liberty to establish their claim in the Civil Suit, which has been filed by them. March 22, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE