BACCHU Vs. BEERWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20.3.2007, whereby the court below has disallowed the application of the petitioners seeking deletion of their names from the proceedings initiated under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC.

(2.) The respondents No. 1 & 2 filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC against the petitioners and respondents No. 3 & 4. The grievance put-forth in the said application is that the permanent injunction order dated 6.4.1993 is not followed by the non-applicants. The court below issued notices on the said application preferred under Order 39 Rule 2-A. In turn, the petitioners preferred an application under Section 151 CPC on 14.2.2007 contending that in original injunction order dated 6.4.1993, the petitioners were not party. In execution proceeding or in application under Order 39 Rule 2-A they cannot be impleaded as party. The other side filed reply and contended that when the civil suit was filed, the present petitioners were ten and seven years of age respectively. Since they were minor at that point of time, they were not impleaded. However, now they have attained majority and creating hindrance in execution of the injunction order dated 6.4.1993. It is further contended that present petitioners are sons of non-applicant No.1. The court below by impugned order rejected the said application dated 14.2.2007.

(3.) Shri M.L.Bansal relied on (Rajkumar v. Tankhram,2002 1 MPWN 219) and submits that present petitioners were not party in the original suit and, therefore, no injunction order was passed against the petitioners. Since petitioners were not party in civil suit, the court below has erred in rejecting their application and continued them as a party in the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC.