GHULAM HAIDER Vs. KAMLESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners through the medium of present revision petition have challenged order dtd. 19/3/2025 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Batote (hereinafter referred to as 'Executing Court') whereby objections filed by them to the execution petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'decree holders') have been rejected.

(2.) It appears that a civil suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction came to be filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (decree holders) against Mst. Janu, mother of the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'judgment debtors') and one Sain Mohd, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 3. Vide judgment dtd. 30/4/1993 passed by learned Sub Judge, Batote, suit of the decree holders came to be decreed in their favour and they were held entitled to decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching upon the suit land measuring 05 kanals 19 marlas falling in khasra No. 1089/609, land measuring 08 kanals 08 marlas falling in khasra No. 109/609 and land measuring 10 kanals 09 marlas falling in khasra No. 610 situated at Amrit Chasime, Patwari Halqa, Champa, Batote. The petitioners (judgment debtors) happen to be the sons of defendant No. 1 in the suit namely Mst. Janu from her first husband, Late Ali Khan whereas, defendant No. 2 in the suit happened to be the second husband of Mst. Janu and respondent No. 3 herein happens to be son of the said defendant.

(3.) It appears that after passing of judgment/decree dtd. 30/1/1993 by the learned Sub Judge, Batote, Mst. Janu, the mother of petitioners (judgment debtors) passed away. After death of Mst. Janu, the petitioners (judgment debtors) who also happen to be her legal heirs filed an application before the learned trial Court for setting aside the judgment/decree dtd. 30/4/1993 on the grounds that the summons of the suit were never served upon the defendants and that the counsel who had appeared on their behalf before the trial Court had forged the signatures of the defendants. Since the judgment of the trial Court dtd. 30/4/1993 was not ex-parte in nature, therefore, learned trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioners (judgment debtors).