LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF GHASI RAM Vs. LAXMINARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 6th April 1991 passed by Additional District Judge, Nagaur, rejecting the injunction application, moved by petitioners by reversing the order passed by Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur on 3. 8. 1984.

(2.) RESPONDENTS Laxminarayan and Satyanarain had filed a suit for rent eviction against Deva Ram son of Shri Sitaram and Bhanwarlal son of Shri Deva Ram. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 27. 2. 76 which was affirmed in appeal on 31st July 1982. The decree for possession was put for execution by the decree-holders against judgment debtors Deva Ram & Bhanwar Lal. During the pendency of execution application after the warrant of poss-ession was issued, Gheesa Ram filed, a suit for declaration of his title against the decree holders as well as judgment debtors and for permanent injunction of restraining the decree holders from dispossessing the plaintiff in execution of the decree. An application for temporary injunction under order 39 rules 1 & 2 CPC was also filed the trial court by its order dated 3. 8. 84 granted a temporary injunction restraining the decree holders from executing the decree in their favour for possession of the suit premises.

(3.) APART from the aforesaid fact one more fact which is apparent from the record and which has not been noticed by the court below is that plaintiff Gheesa Ram died during the pendency of suit. An application under Or. 22 rule 3 was moved by his daughters Mst. Panki in which she clearly stated that prior to his death said Gheesa Ram had bequeathed the property in question in favour of Mool Chand son of Deva Raw, one of the judgement debtor and therefore he be impleaded as a legal representative of Gheesa Ram. Thus, apparently property in respect of which execution was levied against Deva Ram and Bhanwarlal and in respect of which Gheesa Ram claimed himself to be the owner has in the circuitous way has reached the son of Deva Ram, the judgement debtor. In these circumstances if the lower appellate court has come to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff which may warrant issuance of a temporary injunction in their favour resulting in staying the execution of a decree passed by a competent Court and that prima facie the plaintiff appears to be acting at the behest of the judgment debtor, it cannot be said that the lower appellate court has committed any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in reversing the order passed by the trial court.