RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. SANATAN DHARAM MAHABIR DAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bathinda, dated 3.10.1997, on an objection partition under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner to the execution of the decree.

(2.) The first respondent, which is a trust filed a suit for recovery of possession of shops. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court. Against the said decree, the defendants filed an appeal to the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, which was dismissed. Against the decree and judgment of the Additional District Judge, a second appeal was also filed in this Court, which was also dismissed. The defendants carried the matter to the Apex Court. The Apex Court also confirmed the decree. To execute the said decree for possession, the petitioner (decree-holder) filed an application for execution of the same, out of which the present revision petition arises. The petitioner, who is one of the judgment-debtors, is objecting to the execution of the decree on the ground that he was a minor at the time when the suit was instituted in January 1972 and he was not properly represented through a proper guardian in the proceedings. Therefore, the decree is not binding on him and cannot be executed.

(3.) There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner was a minor when the suit was filed. The suit was filed against his brother, mother, himself and his sisters. The mother and the brother of the petitioner refused to receive the notice on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, an application was filed for appointment of a Court-guardian and the Court appointed a Court-guardian for the petitioner. The Court-guardian engaged Shri Jagmohan Lal Syal, Advocate, who was also appearing for the mother and the brother of the petitioner, who also contested the suit The Advocate appearing on behalf of the Court-Guardian, representing the mother of the petitioner, adopted the written statement filed by other defendants. After contest, the suit was decreed. The brother of the petitioner initially filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Bathinda. In that appeal, his mother, brother and sisters have been impleaded as respondents 2 to 8. Respondents 2 to 8 including the present petitioner moved an application on 17.7.1976 before the learned Additional District Judge to transpose them as appellants. On that application the learned District Judge passed the following order: -