BHAGWAN DASS Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree-holder has directed this revision petition against the order dated 14th November, 1987, of the Additional Senior Sub Judge. Kaithal accepting the objections filed by the judgment-debtor under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, and holding that the pre-emption decree sought to be executed is not binding on Naresh Kumar objector and Surinder Kumar minor.

(2.) In brief, the relevant facts are that Ranjha Ram and Others sold 16 Kanals of land to Suresh Kumar, Naresh Kumar and Surinder Kumar vendees. Bhagwan Dass filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption claiming his preferential right under section 15 of the Punjab Pre emption Act. In the said suit, aforesaid Suresh Kumar and Naresh Kumar vendees were depicted as majors while Surinder Kumar defendant was depicted, as a minor and sued through his brother Suresh Kumar. All these defendents-vendees were proceeded ex-parte in the parent suit and ultimately the suit was decreed ex-parte on 2nd December. 1983. The decree-holder then instituted execution proceedings for taking possession of the disputed land, upon which Naresh Kumar judgment-debtor filed objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Produce, contending that he was minor at the time of filing of the suit and wrongly depicted as major and as. such the decree passed against him is in executable. This objection Petition was resisted by the decree holder contending that even if it is held that Naresh Kumar, judgment debtor was a minor, the decree would still be executable as the minor had not suffered anyless as there was effective representation on behalf had not trod any loss as of the minor it, the parent suit.

(3.) The Executing Court accepted the objection-petition by holding that Naresh Kumar being a minor and wrongly depicted as major in the parent suit. the above referred decree was not binding upon him as well as on Surinder Kumar minor even though he had not filed any objection as they were wrongly proceeded ex-parte Under these circumstances, it was held that the decree is not executable qua the shares of these two minors in the disputed land