Civil Revision No.3914 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3914 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: July 16, 2009. Gopal ...Petitioner(s) v. Puran Chand & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.3.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum- Executing Court, Rewari whereby on consideration of the objections under Order 21 rules 97 read with Section 151 CPC filed by Smt. Sarla Devi, it has framed the following issues:- (i) whether the objector is owner in possession over the suit property vide sale deed dated 25.10.1989?; (ii) whether the decree is non-executable?; and (iii) whether the objections are not maintainable?. The onus to prove issues No.1 & 2 has been shifted on the objector. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that Civil Revision No.3914 of 2009 -: 2 :- since all these issues have already been gone into by the civil court while decreeing the petitioner's suit vide judgment and decree dated 7.3.2006, there was no legal necessity for the Executing Court to hold a re-trial and go behind the decree. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any substance in the contentions. The petitioner had filed a suit for possession, inter-alia, alleging that one Chhotey Lal was in illegal possession of the subject property. Chhotey Lal admittedly died during the pendency of the suit. On 20.11.2004, an application for impleadment of his legal representatives was moved. Notwithstanding the fact that Chhotey Lal had left more than one legal representatives, it appears that only one of his sons was brought on record and/or served, as is evident from paragraph 11 of the judgment dated 7.3.2006 of the civil court which reads as follows:- “Learned counsel for the defendant during his arguments submitted that original defendant has already expired. So decree if any passed against the original defendant without bringing his all heirs on file would be nullity. It is pertinent to mention here that on 26.10.04 learned counsel for defendant no.1 brought to the notice of plaintiff as well as court that original defendant has expired. On 20.11.04 application for impleading the LRs of deceased Chhotte Lal was moved. Learned counsel for original defendant No.1 submitted the list of LRs of original defendant no.1 on 26.2.05 but filed the power of attorney on behalf of defendant no.1C only. In the eye of law it was the duty of LRs of defendant No.1 to represent their interest but they did Civil Revision No.3914 of 2009 -: 3 :- not bother. Only defendant no.1C appeared and contested the proceedings. Thus there is no substance for the reasons discussed above, in the contention of learned counsel for defendant no.1(c) that a decree passed. If any against late Chhotte Lal would be nullity because his one LRs appearing before the court and remaining LRs did not bother to appear before the court.” The record further reveals that the respondent-objector (Smt. Sarla Devi), wife of Chhotey Lal though was impleaded as defendant No.1 (a) but neither she nor their other sons were served and given an opportunity to contest the petitioner's claim. It is for that precise reason that no decree was passed against them. Smt. Sarla Devi has now raised objections, inter-alia, claiming herself to be a valid title holder on the basis of sale deed dated 24.10.1989. She has alleged that the decree obtained by the petitioner is not executable. The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the sale deed in his favour is dated 31.5.1985 and prior in time, therefore, no valid title ever passed on to Smt. Sarla Devi. Be that as it may, the objector who, in a way, was not party to the civil court decree, has only a limited right to raise objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and make out a triable issue. The learned Executing Court, in my considered view, has not exceeded its jurisdiction merely by framing the issues and asking the objector to lead evidence and prove the same. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same. However, the Executing Court is directed to Civil Revision No.3914 of 2009 -: 4 :- expedite the proceedings and not to grant unending opportunities to the parties to lead their respective evidence so that the execution proceedings can be decided as early as possible and preferably within six months. July 16, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge