DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which falls for consideration in this revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code') is whether the application filed under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code after the death of the decree holder during execution proceedings arising out of a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') is to be decided by the Civil Court or by the Executing Court itself?. This question has been raised while impugning the order dated 2.12.2000 passed by the District Judge, Rupnagar. In his order, the District Judge has taken the view that the dispute is to be decided by the Civil Court,

(2.) FACTS of the case necessary for deciding the controversy raised in this petition are that a land reference was decided by the District Judge, Rupnagar on 2.2. -1993 and compensation was awarded to one Atma Singh. After the decision on the reference, Atma Singh died on 12,6,1993 and two persons moved application claiming that they are legal heirs/representatives of the deceased Atma Singh. One application was filed by Dalip Singh son of Sunder Singh claiming that he is the legal representative of deceased Atma Sing On the basis of the Will dated 28.8.1992. Another application was filed by Bhajan Kaur daughter of Inder Kaur and Baldev Singh son of Inder Kaur (Inder Kaur is the sister of deceased Atma Singh), On the basis of the claim made by Dalip Singh, Bhajan Kaur and Baldev Singh in their respective applications, the District Judge took the view that it is only the Civil Court which could decide this issue as the Tribunal has limited jurisdiction. On that score alone, the applications were dismissed on 2.12.2000 by directing the parties to fill appropriate proceedings in the Civil Court. Feeling aggrieved by the afore mentioned order, Dalip Singh has approached this Court asserting that it is for the executing. Court to decide this question and it cannot be sent to the Civil Court for decision.

(3.) EARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the application under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code should be decided for the purpose of bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased and decree holder and if any one of them feels aggrieved by the order passed by he executing Court then he can seek his remedy in accordance with law. For the afore mentioned proposition, he has placed reliance on the following judgments of this Court namely Tarsew Dass v. Durga Dass., 1989 P.L.J.477 and Deepinder Kaur v. State of Haryana, 1991 P.L.J. 534.