BALVEER SINGH Vs. GYANA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supplementary Affidavit filed today be taken on record.

(2.) Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the Additional Civil Judge/F.T.C-I, Jalaun at Orai inCivil Revision no.22/2018 (Balveer Singh Vs. Gyana Devi and others) related to execution Suit no.3 of 2001 (Gyana Devi Vs. Balveer Singh and others) as well as order dated 19.02.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalaun at Orai on the Application of the petitioner 24Ga(2) under Sec. Order XXI Rule 29 CPC.

(3.) Record in question reflects that the first respondent-Gyana Devi w/o Hari Singh had filed Original Suit no.70/1985 (Gyana Devi and others Vs. Rani Bahu and others) for permanent injunction. It is claimed that the same was decreed on the basis of compromise on 04.07.2001. The first respondent had filed anExecution Case no.03/2001 (Smt. Gyana Devi and others Vs. Balveer Singh and others). During the pendency of the aforesaid execution case, the son of petitioner namely Raj Kumar Singh had filed Original Suit no.96/2009 (Raj Kumar Singh Vs. Gyana Devi) on 10.07.2009 for permanent injunction. Meanwhile, the petitioner has moved an application under Order XXI Rule 29 C.P.C. in the execution proceeding with a request that during the pendency of proceeding of Suit no.96/2009, the execution proceeding may be stayed. The same was objected by Smt. Gyana Devi and finally the said application was rejected by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalaun vide orderdated 19.02.2015, against which the petitioner had preferred Civil Revision no.22/2015 (Balveer Singh Vs. Gyana Devi and others)and the same was also dismissed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 20.12.2017. While passing the order impugned, the Revisional Court has categorically proceeded to observe that the said application was moved by the petitioner just to delay the execution proceeding and moreover the Original Suit no.96/2009 has been preferred on behalf of son of petitioner and not by the petitionerrevisionist and as such, the application under Order XXI Rule 29 C.P.C. on his behalf is not maintainable. The Revisional Court has also proceeded to place reliance on the judgement passed by this Court in Musammat Hasimi @ Batul Vs. Ali Ahmad and others 2015 (109) ALR 284 Allahabad.