RAM LAKHAN Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Late Sri Ram Lakhan since deceased and survived by the petitioners instituted O.S. no.303 of 1990 against Bhikhai since deceased and survived by the three respondents his daughters for specific performance of an agreement for sale alleged to have been executed by Bhikhai in favour of Ram Lakhan on 3.10.1975. The suit was decreed ex parte on 29.4.1994. Thereafter execution application was filed (Ex case no.10 of 1994) and the execution Court executed the sale deed on behalf of Bhikhai in favour of the petitioner on 14.2.1996. However, after execution of the sale deed the execution was not struck off in full satisfaction of the decree as proceedings for possession were going on. Sri Bhikhai died on 17.6.1997. On his death Hoob Lal was sought to be substituted at his place through application dated 5.7.1997 on the ground that Bhikhai had executed a will in favour of Hoob Lal on 3.11.1996. Respondents 1 and 2 Sushila Devi and Jai Devi daughters of Bhikhai also filed substitution application on 21/22.7.1997 stating therein that they were daughters of Bhikhai who had also executed a sale deed in their favour on 28.7.1994. Respondents no. 1 and 2 also filed restoration application on the same date i.e. 21/22.7.1997 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. praying for setting aside of the ex-parte decree dated 29.4.1994 which was registered as misc. case no.67 of 1997. However, respondent no.3 Shyama Devi the third daughter of Bhikhai did not support his sisters respondents no. 1 and 2 and filed objections against them on 17.3.1998 to their restoration application.

(3.) Substitution application filed by Ram Lakhan seeking substitution of Hoob Lal in the execution case was allowed on 1.8.1997 by the executing Court without noticing substitution application which had been filed by respondents no. 1 and 2 on 21/22.7.1997. Executing Court/Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhadoi, Gyanpur through order dated 20.11.1998 allowed the substitution application/objections of respondent no. 1 and 2 dated 21/22.7.1997 and directed Ram Lakhan the decree holder to implead/substitute in the execution case respondent nos. 1 and 2 also, so that they could also be heard before considering the question of delivery of possession.