IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 30.06.2010 C.R.No.2128 of 1994 Smt. Rukman Devi and another ...Petitioners Versus Jaswant Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 29.07.1991, whereby an application filed by the legal heirs of defendant No.1 to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 01.09.1986 was dismissed. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the learned first appellate Court holding that the same is not maintainable. The plaintiff-respondent Jaswant Singh filed a suit for specific performance of land measuring 14 Kanals 10 Marlas on the basis of agreement to sell dated 9.1.1981 executed by Atma Ram. Sale deed in pursuance to the agreement to sell was to be executed on or before 8.1.1982. However, Atma Ram suffered a consent decree transferring rights in the aforesaid land in favour of his brother i.e. defendant No.2. The suit for specific performance was contested by defendant Nos.1 and 2 by filing separate written statements. Atma Ram died on 20.3.1983 and a statement was made by the counsel for the plaintiff that defendant No.2 is his legal C.R.No. 2128 of 1994 heir. Defendant No.2 contested the suit and examined his witnesses, but the suit was decreed on 01.09.1986. The legal heirs of deceased Atma Ram filed an application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree on 07.10.1986 on the ground that the legal heirs of Atma Ram have not been impleaded, which led to passing of a decree. The learned trial Court dismissed the said application holding that Atma Ram suffered decree in favour of his brother on 24.2.1981 and, therefore, the application to set aside the ex parte decree on behalf of the legal heirs of Atma Ram is not bona fide. As per the facts on record, Atma Ram has purportedly entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff on 9.1.1981, but soon thereafter on 24.2.1981 he suffered decree in favour of his brother Ram Partap. Ram Partap contested the suit. The decree for specific performance was granted by the Civil Court on 1.9.1986. Once Atma Ram has suffered decree in respect of his entire estate in favour of Ram Partap, then Atma Ram has no interest, which could be said to be vesting with the petitioners so as to seek setting aside of the ex parte decree dated 01.09.1986. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon judgments reported as Jangli and another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others 1982(1) SCC 478, Pritam Singh Vs. Gurmukh Singh 1988 (2) PLR 501 and Anil Kumar and others Vs. Ranbir Singh 1988(2) PLR 510, to contend that, in fact, the order passed by the first Appellate Court is not sustainable, as the order dismissing an application for setting aside the abatement order is an appealable order. It is not necessary to examine the question of maintainability of appeal in a greater detail, as on merits, I do not find that the petitioners are entitled to setting aside of the abatement as the interest of Atma Ram was 2 C.R.No. 2128 of 1994 duly represented by Ram Partap on the basis of consent decree dated 24.2.1981. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 30.06.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3