C.R. No.4002 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4002 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.08.2009 Gurdial Kaur .....Petitioner Versus Shoromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The revision is against the order dismissing a claim petition filed under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC by third party proceedings. The third party was none other than the father of the judgment-debtor and his contention was that the properties that had been attached did not belong to the judgement debtor but belonged to him. During the pendency of the application, the third party objector died and it is seen from the records that legal representatives had also been added on 05.03.2003. It is seen from the grounds of revision that after the impleadment when the decree-holder had been taking time for objections and ultimately the impugned order came to be passed on a representation from the judgment debtor that he did not have any C.R. No.4002 of 2003 (O&M) -2- objection. Judgment debtor was but a heir to his father and he could have inherited if at all only to a fractional share. The right to the property in all the legal heirs if it was to be established that the property that was sought to be attached did not belong to the judgment debtor, cannot be taken away. The claim petition filed under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC was required to be adjudicated on merits, for an order passed is in the nature of a decree and therefore, it could not have been dismissed merely on a representation from the judgment debtor that he did not have any objection. The impugned order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 2. The further process in execution as ordered shall also abate. The Court shall now adjudicate on the petition filed under Order 21 Rule 58 where the legal representatives of Ram Chand are parties. The petition shall be disposed of on merits as per procedure within a period of three months from the date of receipt of records from this Court. 3. The civil revision is allowed in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 07, 2009 Pankaj*