NIRANKAR DEV Vs. LALA SRI KISHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Executing Court whereby his objections to the execution of the decree for possession dated 18.11.1976 were dismissed.

(2.) THE decree holder-respondents filed a suit for possession of an area measuring 275 square yards bearing khasra No. 1904 Min situated at Hissar Road, Rohtak. The said suit was filed against M/s. Parkash Dev and Brothers through its partner Jagdish Chander. Jagdish Chander was impleaded as defendant No. 2 was another partner Parma Nand is pleaded (impleaded ?) as defendant No. 3. After the death of Parma Nand, Jagdish Chander, Parkash Dev, Bhim Sain, Nirankar Dev, Satish Kumar and Smt. Rani were impleaded as his legal representatives on an application dated 6.7.1976 under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) filed by the plaintiff. Notice was issued to the legal representatives. Subsequently name of Smt. Rani was deleted from the memo of parties as she was stated to be not a legal representative of deceased Parma Nand on the basis of Will. Shri Partap Chand Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the newly added respondents as well. The suit was decided on the basis of compromise and an area of 64 square yards was left to the plaintiff and suit decreed to that extent whereby the claim of the plaintiff in respect of remaining area was dismissed on 18.11.1976. It was thereafter on 20.9.1977, Parkash Dev, Nirankar Dev, Bhim Sain, Satish Kumar and Smt. Gian Devi claiming to be heirs of Parma Nand moved an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code for setting aside the compromise decree on the ground that Shri Partap Chand, Advocate, was never authorised to act on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased nor the said legal representatives were ever served with the process of Court. It was alleged that on account of mistake of the Court Reader Shri Partap Chand, Advocate, continued to be reflected to defend the defendant-applicants.

(3.) PARMA Nand had died on 18.10.1975. His legal representatives were brought on record. One of the legal representatives Jagdish Chander was already impleaded as defendant No. 2. A written statement was already on the file on behalf of Jagdish Chander and Parma Nand. Subsequently, a compromise decree was passed on the basis of compromise signed by Shri Partap Chand Advocate on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased including Jagdish Chander defendant, who was being represented by the said Advocate.