KARAMBIR SINGH Vs. INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against order dated 21.8.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal whereby objections filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 to 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is a transferee of property pedente lite, therefore, his objections are not maintainable in view of Order 21 Rule 102 CPC.

(2.) The pleaded case of the parties is that Inder Singh (respondent No. 1) suffered a decree of the property in dispute in favour of his wife-Ratni Devi (respondent No. -2) on 14.6.1993. On the basis of said decree, a mutation was sanctioned in her favour on 1.2.1994. Ratni Devi (respondent No. 2) entered into an agreement to sell the property in dispute with Karambir Singh (petitioner) on 30.3.1994 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 8,88,750/-, which is alleged to have been paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 2, and got the possession. Inder Singh (respondent No. 1) challenged the judgment and decree, which is alleged to have been suffered by him in favour of respondent No. 2 (Ratni Devi), in a Civil Suit No. 446 of 1993 titled 'Ratni Devi v. Inder Singh', by way of another Civil Suit No. 666 of 1994 on 4.5.1994 titled as 'Inder Singh v. Ratni Devi', in which one of the issue was as to whether judgment and decree dated 14.6.1993 passed in Civil Suit No. 446 of 1993 titled as 'Ratni Devi v. Inder Singh', is illegal, having been obtained by fraud? That issue has been decided in favour of Inder Singh and it has been held that decree was obtained by Ratni Devi by fraud. The Civil Suit No. 666 of 1994 filed by Inder Singh was decreed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal by judgment and decree dated 23.8.2002, which was challenged by way of appeal by Ratni Devi in Civil Appeal No. 118 of 2002, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal vide his judgment and decree dated 17.3.2003.

(3.) Although, the agreement to sell was of 30.3.1994, but no sale deed was executed by Ratni Devi and no action was taken by the petitioner for a period of 11 years who ultimately filed a suit for specific performance on 3.5.2005 for the purpose of execution of the sale deed, which was decreed ex parte on 26.11.2005 against Ratni Devi. It is alleged that pursuant to the said judgment and decree, sale deed has also been executed in favour of the petitioner on 12.5.2006 and a" mutation has been sanctioned. The dispute arose in this case when Inder Singh (Respondent No. 1) had sought to execute the decree dated 23.8.2002 whereby judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 446 of 1993 was held to be illegal and was set aside on the ground of misrepresentation and fraud and respondent No. 1 was held entitled to possession of the suit property. Thus, in order to protect his possession, the petitioner filed objections Under Order 21 Rule 97 to 103 of CPC. These objections were challenged on the ground of its maintainability under Order 21 Rule 102 of CPC, which provides that: