Civil Revision No.3424 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-7.7.2010 Kartar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Kehar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Parminderjeet Singh Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The matrix of the facts, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, is that when the judgment-debtors did not comply with the decree for possession, then the decree holder filed the execution petition against them in the executing Court. Instead of complying with the decree, the judgment-debtors have filed a variety of objections. They have also filed application (Annexure P1) for impleading the legal representatives of deceased-JD Gurnam Singh son of Bishan Singh and application (Annexure P2) for impleading the legal representatives of deceased-JD Gurmail Singh son of Gurdev Singh. Both these applications were dismissed by the executing Court, vide impugned order dated 1.5.2010. 2. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the impugned order of the executing court and filed the present revision petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to me, there is no merit in this revision petition. 4. However, the main contention of the learned counsel that since Gurnam Singh and Gurmail Singh co-JDs of the petitioner, have died, so, the executing Court ought to have impleaded their LRs, is not only devoid of merit, but misplaced as well. No one can dispute about the observations of this Court in Civil Revision No.3424 of 2010 2 case Kali Ram v. Mangat Ram 2001 (2) Civil Court Cases 241 (P&H) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in case Gibson v. Ramji Dass 1997 (2) Civil Court Cases 537 (HP) that there is no limitation for making an application for impleading the LRs after the amendment in Order 22 Rule 3 CPC by this Court and that application for impleading the LRs can be moved by the proforma respondent, but the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the present controversy. 5. It is not a matter of dispute, not only that, instead of complying with the decree, various judgment-debtors have filed a variety of objections, but have also filed the applications for impleading the LRs of their co-JDs, in order to delay the executing proceedings. Again, it is not a matter of dispute that the applications were not filed by the LRs of the deceased-JDs, but were filed by the co-JDs. The executing Court has acknowledged in the impugned order that there are around 89 JDs in the case. If the LRs of the deceased-JDs are, in any way, affected by the execution of the decree, then they would approach the executing Court for appropriate relief. 6. Be that as it may, to my mind, the applications for bringing on record the LRs of the deceased-JDs, filed by the co-JDs, in order to delay the execution of the decree, were rightly rejected by the executing Court and no interference is warranted in the impugned order, in this respect, while exercising the extraordinary limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is dismissed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 7.7.2010 Judge AS