Kirna Rani(Since Deceased) vs Jagrup Singh And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 13864 P&H

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 13864 P&H
Judgement Date : 1 November, 2022

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kirna Rani(Since Deceased) vs Jagrup Singh And Ors on 1 November, 2022

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                            126                                    CR No.4709 of 2022
                                                                   Reserved on : 27.10.2022
                                                                   Date of Decision: 01.11.2022

                            Kirna Rani (since deceased)                                         ....Petitioner

                                                              VERSUS

                            Jagrup Singh and Others                                          ....Respondents



                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN



                            Present :    Mr. Rajan Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.



                            ALKA SARIN, J.

The present revision petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 21.09.2022

(Annexure P-9) passed by the Trial Court whereby the application of the

petitioner for framing of additional issue has been dismissed.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that plaintiff-

respondent no.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,01,000/- along with future

interest pendente lite @ 1% per month till realization against the defendant-

petitioner as well as defendant-respondent nos.2 and 3. The suit was decreed

vide judgment and decree dated 02.06.2011. On 19.12.2017 the plaintiff-

respondent no.1 filed an execution application for execution of the decree.

During the pendency of the execution application, an application for

impleading the legal representatives of defendant no.3 was filed. The said

application was allowed on 01.03.2019. The present petitioner is one of the

legal representatives of defendant no.3. The petitioner herein filed an

objection petition stating therein that the petitioner had only one house JITENDER KUMAR 2022.11.01 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh

wherein he is residing with his family and the same could not be attached as

the said property falls in gair mumkin and was reflected as such in column

no.7 of the jamabandi. It was further stated that M/s Ajay Kumar & Co. has

three partners, namely, Ajay Kumar, Kirna Rani and Monika Rani.

However, the plaintiff-respondent no.1 had not impleaded Monika Rani as a

party respondent despite the fact that she is also a partner in the firm. A

reply was filed to the said application. Qua the objections raised by the

petitioner that the attached property was a residential house, the Trial Court

opined vide order dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure P-6) that a definite

conclusion could be arrived at after proper evidence was led. Hence, the

issues were framed. The said order was challenged in CR No.3952 of 2022

which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.09.2022. Thereafter,

an application for framing of an additional issue was filed by the petitioner,

which proposed issue reads as under :

"Whether the plaintiff/decree holder has not

intentionally made Monika Rani wife of Raman Kumar

in the array of defendant/JD in the Civil Suit No.64 of

2004 ? OP/DH"

The said application was contested and vide the impugned order

dated 21.09.2022 the said application was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the said

proposed issue was a relevant issue inasmuch as Monika Rani was a

necessary party who was not impleaded in the suit.

Heard.

Civil Suit No.64 of 05.02.2004 was filed by the plaintiff-

respondent no.1 for recovery of Rs.2,01,000/- along with interest. The said JITENDER KUMAR 2022.11.01 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and suit was contested. On the basis of the pleadings in that suit the issues were integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh

framed and evidence was thereafter led. In the suit no such plea was raised

that the suit was bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of necessary parties. A

perusal of the judgment dated 02.06.2011 reveals that it was neither a plea

raised in the written statement nor even argued. Having not raised the plea of

non-joinder of necessary parties at the time when the suit was argued and

decided and the judgment and decree passed having attained finality, the

said plea cannot now be permitted to be raised in the execution proceedings.

The petitioner appears to be attempting to stall the execution proceedings on

one pretext or the other by filing totally frivolous applications. The present

application also appears to be nothing but an endeavour to delay the

execution proceedings.