S.S.MULTANI Vs. VANEETA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the order dated 23.7.2007 passed in CMP NO. 262 -S/6 of 2007 and order dated 2.8.2007 passed in CMP No. 305 -S/6 of 2007 in Civil Suit No. 9 -S/1 of 1997/85, by the learned District Judge, Shimla, dismissing the application of petitioner under Order 22 Rule 4, Order 8 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC and another application under Order 1 Rule 10, Order 8 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that Civil Suit No. 29 of 1985 for possession by specific performance of agreement dated 26.3.1982 was filed in this Court against P.S. Multani father of the petitioner. The suit on enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of lower courts, was assigned to the court of District Judge, Shimla where it was registered as Civil Suit No. 9 -S/1 of 1997 -95. The suit was decreed on 7.1.1998 and RFA No. 133 of 1998 was filed against the judgment, decree dated 7.1.1998, which was dismissed by this court on 29.8.2005. The plaintiff, besides other directions, was directed to deposit the sale consideration in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from 29.8.2005 for being paid to the defendant after the execution and registration of the sale deed. Civil Appeal No. 2494 of 2007 was filed in the Honble Supreme Court against the judgment dated 29.8.2005 in RFA No. 133 of 1998. The Honble Supreme Court on 14.5.2007 has allowed the appeal, impugned judgment and order of the High Court as also the ex -parte decree passed by the learned District Judge on 7.1.1998 were set aside and the parties were directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 11.6.2007.

(3.) THIS application was contested by taking the pleas that application is not maintainable, application is mala fide and has been filed to delay the decision in the case. The petitioner was served in RFA No. 133 of 1998 and he was represented by a counsel. The application is not bona fide otherwise he would have taken this plea when the appeal was pending in the High Court. The petitioner is one of the legal representatives of P.S. Multani and has been brought on record, he cannot set up a new or individual right. He can continue with the proceedings on the same cause of actions on which his predecessor in interest P.S. Multani was continuing. It has been denied that the interest of the petitioner is adverse to deceased P.S. Multani and Smt. Lal Devi. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take different stand than the one taken by his predecessor. The CMP NO. 262 -S/6 of 2007 was dismissed by learned District Judge on 23.7.2007.