VANEET GANDOTRA Vs. VINOD GANDOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31st of August, 2010 passed by learned Sub Judge, Jammu whereby the application of the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 97 of C.P.C. has been rejected. With a view to understand the controversy in its correct perspective, it is necessary to briefly state a few facts.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 filed a suit for mandatory injunction against respondent No. 2, who is the father of petitioner herein, seeking a direction to remove his belongings and vacate two rooms and a kitchen, which formed the subject matter of the suit. This has resulted in a decree dated 6th of December, 1993 by the court of learned Sub Judge, Jammu. Execution proceedings were filed by the decree holder-respondent No. 1 herein.

(3.) The petitioner herein, who claims to be also in possession of the aforementioned two rooms and a kitchen along with his father, moved an application before the court where the execution proceedings were pending, for impleadment as party respondents in the execution proceedings on the plea that he had already filed a suit, questioning the right of his father for relinquishing his share in the ancestral property without his consent. That particular application for impleadment came to be dismissed by the Executing Court on the ground that his earlier application for impleadment as party-respondent in the suit in which the decree had been passed, was dismissed.