SAIRA HAFEEZ Vs. PARVEEN REHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Caveat Petition No.296/2014

(2.) This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure impugns an order dated 14.03.2014 in Execution Petition No. 189 of 2008 whereby the petitioners' objection application was dismissed as being not maintainable in law. The petitioners/objectors had sought the dismissal of the Execution Petition. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff/Decree Holder (DH) had filed the aforesaid Execution Petition for recovery of the suit premises as well as mesne profits in terms of the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2005 in Suit No. 96/2002 in which the JD was declared to be in unauthorized occupation of the suit property No. D-190, Abul Fazal Enclave, Okhla, Delhi-110025 and an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was directed to be paid as mesne profit till the handing over of the possession. Warrants of Possession with respect to the suit premises had been issued on 19.07.2008, but on 01.10.2008, the present petitioners filed objections to the execution petition. They claimed that they were the Legal Representatives (LRs) of the JD, therefore, they ought to be heard in the Execution Petition. They claimed that much before his demise on 25.02.2008, the JD had registered a Will on 28.02.2002 bequeathing the suit property to them, hence, they were entitled to it and since they were not parties to the suit, they were not bound by the judgment and the decree. They argued that, therefore, the Execution Petition ought to be dismissed.

(3.) The respondent/plaintiff had sought a decree of possession of the suit property and mesne profit against the defendant for the occupation of the premises. The JD preferred an appeal in this Court, bearing RFA No. 25 of 2006 but the same was withdrawn by his LRs on 05.05.2008. However, during the pendency of the case, he expired on 25.02.2008. The RFA was later dismissed as withdrawn by order of 05.05.2008. The respondent/DH claimed that therefore, the judgment and decree had attained finality as of that day, and neither the JD nor anybody claiming through him would have any right, title or interest in the suit property nor could he part with possession of the same in favour of anybody else except for the plaintiff/DH as had been decreed, and the JD and all claiming through him would be unauthorized occupants of the premises.