MEHAR SINGH Vs. HARMESH PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Maghar Singh decree-holder (hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder ). The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are as under :kaka Singh judgment debtor (hereinafter referred to as the judgment debtor) sold the house in dispute situated at Kurali to Maghar Singh on. 25. 11,1982 for a total consideration of Rs. 30. 000/ -. Judgment debtor took the house in dispute on lease from the decree holder at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/ -. Since the rent was not paid by the judgment debtor, an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by the decree holder on 2. 6. 1983. The ejectment petition filed by the decree holder succeeded and an order of ejectment was passed against the judgment debtor on 11. 1. 1984. Harmesh Pal Singh and Devinder Singh sons of judgment debtor filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. for being impleaded as a party in the ejectment petition which was dismissed as they were not found to be necessary parties to the ejectment petition. The order of ejectment was ex parte against the judgment debtor. Neither an application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed nor any appeal carried to the Appellate Court.

(2.) HARMESH Pal Singh and Devinder Singh filed a suit in the court of competent jurisdiction challenging the sale effected on 25. 11. 1982 by their father, judgment debtor, in favour of the decree holder on the ground that the property in dispute was H. U. F. property and ancestral in nature and the same could not be sold without legal necessity and due consideration. They further claimed to be the owners and in possession of the property in dispute. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 14. 1. 1988. An appeal was carried against the judgment and decree which was dismissed on 7. 5. 1988. The findings recorded in the suit were that the property in dispute was neither ancestral nor H. U. F. property ; the sale was found to be valid and which consideration ; plaintiffs were held not to be owners but they were found to be in possession of the property in dispute and that they could not be dispossessed from the property in dispute except in accordance" with law.

(3.) PRIOR to the filing of the suit by Hirmssh Pal Singh and. Devinder Singh sons of the judgment debtor, the decree holder had filed an execution application in pursuance to the orders of ejectment passed in his favour by the Rent Controller on 11. 1. 1984. On the filing of the suit by Harmeshpal Singh and his brother Devinder Singh, the execution filed by the decree holder was ordered to be kept in abeyance and consigned to the record room. On the final disposal of the suit filed by the sons of judgment debtor on 7. 5. 1988, the decree holder filed an application on 10. 5. 1988 for revival of the execution proceedings which had been ordered to be keet in abeyance during the pendency of the suit. The execution application was accordingly revived.