MANOJ KOMAL Vs. SARDAR GURPREET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the two orders of the executing court; dated 8.3.2013 and 17.5.2013; by which the executing court has directed warrants of possession to be issued against the suit/decreed property being 20 sq yds numbered 188F, Old Gupta Colony, Delhi -110009.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent herein (plaintiff in the suit) filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits against two defendants, namely Smt. Biant Kaur and Sardar Asa Singh. Sardsar Asa Singh is the step son of Smt. Biant Kaur. Both Smt. Biant Kaur and Sardar Asa Singh died during the pendency of the suit and accordingly their legal heirs were substituted in their places. Smt. Biant Kaur was substituted by her two legal heirs, namely Mrs. Bindra and Sh. Gurcharan Singh whereas defendant no. 2 Sardar Asa Singh was substituted by Sh. Surinder Singh, Sh. S. Inderpal Singh and Smt. Ranjit Kaur Chhabra. The legal heirs of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 as stated above are those as per the memo of parties given in the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2004. The operative portion of the judgment dated 31.5.2004 decreeing the suit reads as under: -

(3.) AS per Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , a judgment and decree in the suit is binding not only against the parties to the suit but the same is binding also against the persons/legal heirs who claim through the parties in the suit. Order XXI Rule 102 CPC states that the persons who are pendente lite transferees of a suit property will not have right to file objections to the judgment and decree pertaining to an immovable property. Therefore, if transferees pendente lite cannot file objections, then, surely original parties to the suit or their legal representatives or persons claiming through the parties to the suit cannot file objections because that would take away the binding effect of res judicata provided under Section 11 CPC.