FANCY AGRICULTURE WORKS Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner M/s Fancy Agriculture Works assailing the order dated 12.8.2005 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal whereby its objections in the pending execution have been summarily rejected without framing any issue.

(2.) THE case set-up by the petitioner is that Ved Parkash (respondent No. 2) and his wife Smt. Brij Mohini (respondent No. 3) were the landlords of the premises in dispute. In the year 2001, they filed an ejectment petition against their tenant Sohan Lal (since deceased) and now represented by his LR Vinod Kumar (respondent No. 4), on the ground of non-payment of rent. It is alleged that the correct address of Sohan Lal was not given. In any case, Sohan Lal died on 10.6.2001 leaving behind Vinod Kumar (respondent No. 4) as his legal heir. The latter entered into a partnership with Anil Kumar on 2.7.2001 (Annexure P-1). The partnership was started in the name of M/s Fancy Agriculture Works-petitioner herein. Ved Parkash and Smt. Brij Mohini (respondents No. 2 and 3), it is stated, sold the suit property on 30.7.2001 to Sunil Kumar (respondent No. 1). Accordingly, Sunil Kumar was substituted in place of Ved Parkash and Smt. Brij Mohini (respondents No. 2 and 3) as petitioners No. 1 and 2 in the ejectment petition pending before the Rent Controller. Since the correct address of Sohan Lal, tenant was not given, the ejectment petition was proceeded ex parte against him and decided in favour of Sunil Kumar (respondent No. 1). On 1.2.2003, Sunil Kumar (respondent No. 1) filed an execution petition in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal. When the petitioner-firm came to know about the said execution, it filed objections which have been dismissed in pursuance of the impugned order which is challenged by the petitioner.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It may be noticed that the ejectment petition was filed by Ved Parkash and Smt. Brij Mohini (respondents No. 2 and 3) on 7.3.2001 on the ground that Sohan Lal, tenant was in arrears of rent since 1.1.1998. Sohan Lal, tenant died during the pendency of the case on 10.6.2001. Thereafter, the property was sold by Ved Parkash and Smt. Brij Mohini (respondents No. 2 and 3) to Sunil Kumar (respondent No. 1) on 30.7.2001. Sunil Kumar was substituted in the petition in place of Ved Parkash and Smt. Brij Mohini on 3.8.2001. The petition was ultimately decided on 18.10.2002. The contention of the petitioner is that the decree was obtained by the decree-holder/respondent by playing fraud on the Court. Besides, the decree- holder/respondent was aware of the demise of Sohan Lal and yet he did not implead him as a party. In fact, Sunil Kumar, decree-holder/respondent, it is contended, has no locus standi to pursue the application on the ground given therein.