C.R. No. 6056 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6056 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 31, 2009 Parkasho Devi and others …..Petitioners Vs. Sadhu Ram and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) A decree for recovery of Rs.10 lacs was obtained against Prem Singh by the respondents. Petitioner No.1 is mother and petitioners No.2 and 3 are daughter and son of Prem Singh. The property which is alleged to be owed by petitioners after the death of Prem Singh stands already attached. Since petitioner No.1 being mother, petitioners No.2 and 3 are C.R. No. 6056 of 2008 [2] daughter and son of judgment debtor, without calling for the report of the Collector, the application of the petitioners for filing the appeal as pauper has been dismissed. Taking into consideration the fact that the original judgment debtor has died and the liability, if any, of the petitioners is only to the extent they inherit the property of the deceased, the property inherited by them is stated to have been attached in execution of the decree which is under challenge as such it is apparent that petitioners will be deprived of a right to contest the appeal on merits, in case the impugned order is permitted to be sustained. In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The appeal of the petitioners will be decided on merits. Let the appeal be decided within a period of 3 months after the receipt of a certified copy of the order. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. It is made clear that this order will not be treated as a precedent in future but the petitioners have been permitted to contest the first appeal, which is a matter of right, without filing of the Court fee. It will not entitle the petitioners to any subsequent benefit and they will not be treated as pauper in case of their filing of further appeals. Their status will have to be determined afresh as per the circumstances existing at the time of second appeal, if any. August 31, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE C.R. No. 6056 of 2008 [3]