IDRISH Vs. ASH MOHAMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for quashing the impugned judgment dated 15.11.1999 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ferozepur Jhirka whereby objection filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1 Ash Mohamad filed a suit against the defendants which was decreed on 30.09.1992. During the pendency of the suit, judgment debtor nos. 5 and 6 sold some land to judgment debtor nos. 7 to 10 and on the application of decree holder, judgment debtor nos. 7 to 10 were impleaded as a party in the execution petition vide order dated 18.01.1997 and the amended execution petition was filed. Judgment debtor no.5 filed reply. Judgment debtor nos. 4, 7 to 10 also raised objection that they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and the decree dated 30.09.1992 is null and void because judgment debtor nos. 1 and 2 were minors and were not properly represented. The Executing Court after considering the pleadings framed the following issues:-

(3.) The Executing Court after appreciating the material on record recorded a combined finding on issue nos. 2 to 4 and came to the conclusion that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the minors have not been effectively represented or any prejudice has been caused to them on account of non-compliance of the Order 32 Rule 3 of C.P.C. The Executing Court also concluded that it is apparent from the evidence on record that JDs No.1 and 2, namely, Smt. Akhtari and Smt. Jubeda had filed a civil suit No. 365/87 against Smt. Aimna and Sh. Ash Mohamad (DH in this case). As per the plaint of the said suit, plaintiffs Smt. Akhtari and Smt. Jubeda had pleaded that their father Khushi Khan had died a civil death and on his death, his widow Smt. Aimna inherited the share of Khushi Khan as her life estate. The Executing Court elaborately discussed the evi- dence led by the parties and came to the conclusion that the minors were represented by guardian Mauj Khan. It has also been admitted by the mother of the minors that they were in custody of Mauj Khan. The Executing Court ultimately came to the conclusion relying upon the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Amrik Singh etc. v. Karnail Singh etc., 1974 76 PunLR 744, that no prejudice has been caused to the minors. The Executing Court also considered the objections raised by the petitioners that they are bona fide purchasers for consideration and are not bound by the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1992. In the suit, order of status quo was passed. During the pendency of the civil suit, after the status quo order dated 30.10.1987, they got the sale deed executed in their favour. It is settled principle of law that purchasers during the pendency of the suit cannot be considered bona fide purchasers for consideration. They can only claim damages from the vendor. Since the petitioners are subsequent vendees and are purchasers during the pendency of the civil suit, their sale deeds are affected by principle of lis pendens.