RAMKISHAN GARG Vs. MATTULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI B. S. Agarwal has drawn my attention to the order passed in this matter on 27-9-1984 to submit that though he represented the deceased non-petitioner, mattulal, the legal representatives of the deceased not having been brought on record till now, the petition may not be heard. However, when I told him that I am ordering just now the legal representatives to be impleaded he submitted that he may be allowed to file memo of appearance on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased, mattulal, during the course of the day. The prayer is allowed, and indeed, as alluded, substitution of Mattulal by his legal representatives as prayed by I. A. No. 3690/84 also stands allowed. Hearing on merits taken up. Counsel heard.

(2.) A preliminary objection is taken by Shri Agarwal to the maintainability of the revision petition submitting that the impugned order passed on 3-5-1971 having been rendered after the amendment, there was a right of appeal available to the petitioner in virtue of provisions of Order 21 Rule 103 Civil Procedure Code. But the moot question is, whether the impugned order can be said to be an order passed under Order 21 Rule 103 Civil Procedure Code. I am definitely of the view, for reasons to follow, that it was not; and I have no hesitation, therefore, to over-rule the objection.

(3.) THE admitted position in the case is that the impugned order was rendered on 3-5-1977 on an application being filed by the decree-holder, the instant petitioner, on 8-11-1976, under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 35 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure code. The case has a long history but it is not necessary for me to travel the whole distance to reveal the pleasant as also unpleasant facts which are revealed in execution proceedings when parties fight to break heads in order to secure the possession decreed because, paradoxically, of legal process taking its effect. I go back only to 1972.