ASHOK Vs. KHYALI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. APPL. 6356/2022 This is an application filed by the Petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, seeking deletion of Respondents No.1 and 3 who are stated to have expired and stating that being issueless, their alleged share goes to the legal heirs of Liaq Ram/Respondent No.2. Issue notice. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents accepts notice. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Names of Respondents No.1 and 3 are hereby deleted from the array of parties. Amended memo of parties filed along with the application is taken on record. Application stands disposed of. C.R.P. 20/2020 & C.M. APPL. 4004/2020 (for stay) Jyoti Singh, J. 1. By this revision petition, Petitioners seek quashing of order dtd. 10/1/2020, passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 95292/2016 titled 'Khyali Ram and Others v. Ashok and Others', whereby objections filed by the Petitioners have been dismissed and warrants of possession have been issued against suit property bearing House No. 548, with adjacent courtyard, situated in Village Abadi of Village Khera Kalan, Delhi-110062. Petitioners herein are sons of late Sh. Laxman Singh who was one of the Defendants before the Trial Court while Respondents are legal representatives of the three Plaintiffs before the Trial Court.

(2.) Facts to the extent necessary can be encapsulated as Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction on 24/4/1986 against two Defendants namely Sh. Bholey Ram and Sh. Laxman Singh, seeking a restraint from interfering with peaceful possession over the suit property. A joint written statement was filed by the Defendants denying possession of Plaintiffs over the suit property as well as correctness of the site plan filed with the plaint. Defendant No. 1/ Sh. Bholey Ram gave a statement on 25/4/1988 that he had no concern with the suit property and had been unnecessarily impleaded as a Defendant. In view of this statement, Plaintiffs withdrew their suit against Defendant No. 1 and the suit proceeded against Defendant No. 2.

(3.) Trial Court, as an interim measure, ordered status quo with regard to possession and existing construction on the suit property and a Local Commissioner was also appointed. According to Defendant No. 2, Local Commissioner reported that possession of the open courtyard was with Defendant No. 2 while the adjacent area was in possession of Defendant No. 1 and some neighbours and this established that Plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit property. No objections were filed by the Plaintiffs against the Local Commissioner's report.