C.R. No. 1269 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1269 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 16.07.2010 Rachna Sachdeva .......... Petitioner Versus Sunil Makkar ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the learned Rent Controller for passing appropriate and consequential order, in execution application No. 56 of 2009, in which the petitioner filed objections Annexure P/4 dated 19.9.2009, and another application Annexure P/3 dated 25.9.2009, moved under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the eviction order passed against Ranson International. The case of the petitioner is, that the plot in dispute i.e. 17-A, Extension, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana was allotted to partnership firm under the name and style M/s Remington Cycle Company. The three partners of the firm at the time of allotment, were Prem Sagar Makkar and Surinder Kumar Makkar sons of late C.R. No. 1269 of 2010 -2- Sh. Mohan Lal Makkar, and Mehal Chand son of Hari Chand. The partnership was entered into between the partners on 19.5.1956. The case of the petitioner is, that on retirement of Mehal Chand from the partnership firm, the partnership firm formed on 19.5.1956 was dissolved on 31.10.1980. A new partnership was entered into by inducting predecessor-in-interest of petitioner i.e. Sh. Surinder Kumar Makkar. The new partnership deed entered into between the parties on 11.11.1980. The case of the petitioner is, that after the death of Surinder Kumar Makkar on 2.11.2003, the petitioner being legal heir i.e. daughter of Surinder Kumar Makkar were entitled to either to be inducted as partner or in the alternative the accounts was required to be settled between the partiners by giving share falling to Sh. Surinder Kumar Makkar, which was not done. The case further set up by the petitioner is, that without impleading the petitioner as party, respondent No.1 by claiming to be representing a private company, which was formed by dissolving firm, obtained an ex parte order against the tenant. The respondent company was executing the order of eviction in which the petitioner, moved application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as the objections to the execution of the decree. The grievance of the petitioner is, that the learned Rent Controller has ordered the issuance of warrants of possession without disposing off the applications moved by the petitioner, therefore, he prays for direction to get these applications disposed of. The applications moved by the petitioner are totally C.R. No. 1269 of 2010 -3- misconceived and deserves to be dismissed, as the petitioner is neither the judgment debtor, nor any order has been passed against them, rather order of eviction is in favour of the landlord, in which the petitioner is claiming substantial share i.e. 1/3rd inherited by Sh. Surinder Kumar Makkar. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed being misconceived. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has pointed out, that in order to claim his right the petitioner has already filed a suit for declaration and injunction, it would be open to the petitioner to seek all available relief to protect the interest of the petitioner by moving appropriate applications. It is also not disputed, that the formation of the company is also under challenge. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, and dispose off the applications moved or to be moved by the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law. However, this petition as earlier observed is ordered to be dismissed. The learned trial Court, where the suits are pending, is also directed to look into 'as to how the company transferred the property by way of mortgage or rent to its own Director in their individual capacity without the consent of share holders etc. '. Civil revision dismissed. 16.07.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE