VIJAY KUMAR Vs. L.RS. OF KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 15.04.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Udaipur, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading several persons as party respondents has been rejected. Brief facts of the case are that objections under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC were filed by the present petitioner on 09.02.1995, in the execution proceedings in respect of a decree dt. 01.06.1970, initiated by one Kanhaiyalal while impleading him only as opposite party. Kanhaiya Lal had filed reply to the objection on 28.02.1995 and on 09.04.2013, the petitioner has moved an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC and prayed that since the original decree was passed in favour of one Amrit Lal, all the legal representatives of Amrit Lal are required to be impleaded as party. The above referred application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the trial Court while holding that the proceedings pending on an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC cannot be termed as a proceeding of suit and, therefore, the application preferred by the petitioner for impleading the legal representatives of late Amrit Lal is not liable to be accepted.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for impleading the legal representatives of Amrit Lal as party without taking into consideration that the only object of Order I Rule 10 CPC is to reduce the multiplicity of the proceedings. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was not having information about all the legal representatives of original judgment debtor, he has failed to implead those persons as party in the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is proper to allow the application of the petitioner for impleading the legal representatives of original judgment debtor as party.

(3.) THE learned trial Court has observed that in the very same matter, an application for impleading Trilochan Singh etc. as party was dismissed by the trial Court on 06.09.2012 against which the writ petition was preferred before Hon'ble High Court and the same has also been dismissed. It has also been observed by the learned trial Court that in its order dt. 06.09.2012, the Court has held that the provisions of Order I Rule 10 CPC cannot be applied in the execution proceedings and the same order has been affirmed by the High Court and, therefore, the application preferred by the petitioner at such a belated stage is not liable to be accepted. The learned trial Court has further observed that the question of not impleadment of all the legal representatives of original judgment debtor will be taken into consideration at the time of decision of the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC preferred by the petitioner. It has also been observed by the learned trial Court that the matter is pending since 1995 and earlier a similar application of this nature has already been rejected and, therefore, the present application is liable to be rejected, and while observing this, the learned trial Court has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC on 09.04.2013 with cost of Rs. 500/ -.