YOGESHWAR EDUCATION TRUST Vs. SIMARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SARVSHRI Darbara Singh, Sewa Singh and Dalbir Singh purchased land measuring 131 kanals 10 marlas in the year 1967. Two separate suits were filed for possession by way of pre-emption by Smt. Surbi and Smt. Giano. Learned trial court decreed both the suits on 20.10.1972. The appeal was also dismissed. Regular Second Appeal was also dismissed by this court on March 8, 1982, However, Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment and decree of pre-emption passed in favour of the plaintiffs on 10.7.1995 and the suit for pre-emption was dismissed.

(2.) AFTER the suit of pre-emption was decreed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the pre-emptors had taken over physical possession of the land in May 1982 and sold the same in favour of the present petitioners on 4.7.1982, On 15.5.1988, vendees i.e. Sewa Singh, Dalbir Singh and Darbara Singh filed an application under section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restitution of possession of the land which was taken by the preemptors in May, 1982. It may be noticed that two of the vendees namely Sewa Singh and Dalbir Singh had died on 7.6.1997 and 16.2.1997 respectively but the application for restitution of possession was filed by all the three vendees. It was only on 14.5.2002 that an application was filed by the legal representatives of Sewa Singh and Dalbir Singh to be impleaded themselves as parties in the restitution application. Learned executing court vide order dated 20.11.2002 permitted the legal representatives of deceased Sewa Singh and Dalbir Singh to proceed further with the application filed under Section 144 C.P.C. It is the said order which is challenged by the petitioner by way of the present revision petition.

(3.) CONTROVERTING the arguments of the petitioner, Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, stated that in fact one of the applicants was competent to file application on behalf of all the other applicants. It was stated that application for restitution of possession is in the nature of the execution and thus one of the applicants was competent to file the execution for the benefit of all the decree holders. Reliance was placed on the provisions of Order 21 Rule 15 CPC. It was also argued that legal representatives of the decree holders are not required to be impleaded as the provisions of Order 22 Rules 3 and 4 CPC are not applicable in execution proceedings. It was thus contended that the original application for restitution of possession can be treated to be on behalf of one decree holder for the benefit of all the decree holders. Subsequently, the other legal representatives of other decree holders can come on record to seek restitution of the property. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Attra v. Ram Singh, 1985 R.R.R. 550 : 1995 P.L.J. 9 for the said proposition.