BODH RAJ Vs. RANO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MST . Rano Devi, applicant, has preferred this petition seeking review of the order dated 12 -10 -2000 passed by this Court in CSA No. 19/ 1994 treating it as a Revision in case titled Bodh Raj and others versus Smt. Rano Devi.

(2.) SETTING in facts of the case, a suit for possession commenced by Bodh Raj and others in respect of the land aggregating 57 kanals and 13 marlas came to be decreed by Massif, Billawar, vide his judgment and decree dated 18 -08 -1973. The decree - holders, in which Mst. Rano Devi took the objection with regard to its executability, put the decree to execution the legal heir of deceased Beli Ram, judgment debtor. It was further pleaded that the decree is un -executable being nullity and without jurisdiction having been passed in contravention of the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act. Plea taken by the judgment -debtor, Mst. Rano Devi, prevailed with the executing Court and the Court held the decree un -executable on the ground of being against the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act, vide its order dated 31 -10 -1975. Aggrieved by the order of the Executing Court, an appeal was preferred by the decree -holders before District Judge, Kathua. The District Judge allowed the appeal, Kathua, vide his judgment and order dated 27 -05 -1989, and after setting aside the order remanded back the case with the direction for the execution of the decree. Beli Ram, judgment -debtor, however, died during the currency of the appeal before the District Judge, Kathua, and was succeeded by Mst. Rano Devi. Civil Revision No. 184/1990 was preferred by Mst. Rano Devi before the High Court to impugn the correctness of the order passed by the District Judge, Kathua. The Revision, however, stood disposed of with the direction to the Executing Court to dispose of the application for impalement as party in the execution proceedings, if preferred by Mst. Rano Devi, petitioner, and permit her to canvass her right to claim property as legal heir of the deceased Beli Ram, vide its judgment and order dated 26 -09 -1991. The applicant, Rano Devi, was, however, declared as legal heir of the deceased Beli Ram by the Executing Court in deciding her application made in this behalf. Thereupon, she preferred to file objections to the maintainability of the execution petition filed by the decree -holders, Bodh Raj and others, before the Executing Court (Munsiff, Billawar). The Executing Court of Munsiff, Billawar, when found himself in dilemma on variant directions of the District Judge, Kathua, on the one hand, and the High Court, on the other, made a reference seeking direction/guidance for the disposal of the matter in execution proceedings pending before him. While rejecting the reference vide order dated 5 -11 -1993, the High Court observed that once Mst. Rano Devi is held to be legal heir of the deceased Beli Ram, she under law is entitled to file objections with regard to the maintainability of the execution petition to be decided by the Executing Court under law. The Executing Court, after having considered the objections in respect of the maintainability of the execution proceedings, again held that the decree is nullity and in contravention of the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act of 1972 and 1976, and dismissed the execution petition, vide order dated 24 -03 -1994. The Executing Court further held that such a decree is unelectable by the Civil Court. Against the order of dismissal of the execution petition by the Executing Court, the decree -holders, Bodh Raj and others, impugned its correctness in an appeal before District Judge, Kathua, which again stood dismissed by the District Judge, Kathua, vide order dated 30 -08 -1994, in holding the order passed in execution proceedings under section 47 CPC, non -appeasable. It was this order passed by the Court of District Judge, Kathua, which became the subject matter of challenge before the High Court in appeal, which, however, came to be treated as Revision and pen ultimately decided vide its order dated 12 -10 -2000, in holding as under:

(3.) IT is against this order that the present Review Petition has been filed.