JIT SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed against the order dated 3.6.1989 whereby objection filed by one Kaka Singh against the judgment and decree dated 11.4.1969 has been dismissed. It is submitted by the petitioners that in RFA No.379 of 1961, decided by Division Bench of this Court, following order was passed: -

(2.) Kaka Singh had filed objections, inter alia, on the ground that the execution is time barred and Rs. 5500 has not been deposited before 31.5.1969. However, vide order dated 3.6.1989 the objection was dismissed. Kaka Singh died on 19.2.1991. During his life time, he did not challenge the order and after his death, the present petitioners, who are his son and daughter, filed objections in the execution, which were dismissed on 2.6.1993. They preferred Civil Revision No.2676 of 1993, which was also dismissed by this Court by a detailed order on 15.1.2014, on the ground that the son and daughter of Kaka Singh cannot raise objections because Kaka Singh himself had not preferred any revision against order dated 3.6.1989 and allowed it to become final. After the aforesaid happening, the son and daughter of Kaka Singh have again approached this Court through this revision to challenge the order dated 3.6.1989 on the ground that earlier revision petition bearing CR No.2676 of 1993 was filed when the objections filed by them in their individual capacity were dismissed on 2.6.1993 but at present they have filed the revision being the LRs of Kaka Singh to challenge the order dated 3.6.1989.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the sine qua non to execute the decree was deposit of Rs. 5500/- before 31.5.1969 and since the said amount has not been deposited the execution cannot proceed. It is submitted that Kaka Singh being a Sewadar in electricity Department, having meager resources could not approach this Court to challenge the order and expired on 19.2.1991 at an old age, therefore, the petitioners being the son and daughter of Kaka Singh may be allowed to challenge the order dated 3.6.1989.