Rajasthan High Court
Raheem Dayani vs Ram Chandra And Others on 8 December, 2023
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 94/2012
Raheem Dayani S/o Shri Karmali Bhai Alias Peer Mohammad S/o
Peer Bhai, R/o 13815 Clint Way Dr. Houston, Tax. 77014, USA.
---Applicant-Petitioner
Versus
1. Ram Chandra S/o Mathura La,R/o Chipa Barod, District
Baran Since Deceased Through His Legal
Representatives:-
1/1 Badri Lal S/o Late Ram Chandra Mahajan R/o Holi Ka
Khunt, Chopa Barod, District Baran-Death
1/2 Avnish Kumar S/o Shri Brij Mohan R/o Holi Ka Khunt,
Chipa Barod, District Baran.
1/3 Brij Mohan S/o Late Ram Chandra Mahajan Rl/o Hero
Honda Motor Cycle Showroom, Chipa Barod, District
Baran. Death
1/4 Ganesh lal S/o Late Ram Chandra Mahajan, R/o Khare
Kuwe ke Pass, Chopa Barod, District Baran.
1/5 Shyam Bihari S/o Late Shri Ram Chandra Mahajan R/o
Holi Ka Khunt, Chipa Barod, District Baran.
1/6 Ram Nath S/o Late Ram Chandra Mahajan R/o Hat
Chowk Gadi Ke Samne, Chopa Barod, District Baran-Death
1/7 Kaushaliya Bai D/o Late Shri Ram Chandra Mahajan.
1/8. Gulab Bai W/o Late Shri Ram Chandra Mahajan.
Plaintiff-Respondents
2. Gulam Hussain S/o Peer Bhai Since Deceased Through His
Legal Representatives
2/1. Mansoor Dayani S/o Late Shri Gulam Hussain, r/o Khoja
Colony, Nijamabad (Andhra Pradesh)
3. Amrita Bai Widow Of Peer Bhai, Lawance Road, Karanchi
Pakistan
4. Rehmtullah Widow Of Peer Bhai, Lawance Road, Karanchi
Pakistan
5. Rehmat Bai W/o Taher Bhai, R/o Patail Pada Garden Near
Jamatkhan, Karanchi, Pakistan.
6. Mst. Tayer Ali S/o Peer Bhai, R/o Patail Pada Garden, Near
Jamatkhan, Karanchi, Pakistan.
7. Mst. Kulsam Bhai D/o Tayer Bhai, R/o Karanchi, Pakistan..
(Downloaded on 12/12/2023 at 08:49:15 PM)
(2 of 4) [CR-94/2012]
8. Mst. Gulbani W/o Popat Bhai, R/o Wapi, Mumbai
9. Sakina W/o Harzi Bhai, R/o Surendra Nagar, Gujrat.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. P. Goyal, Senior Adv. assisted by
Ms. Jyoti Swami, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Agarwal, Adv. with
Mr. Laxmi Kant, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date Of Judgment 08/12/2023
The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-
applicant(for short 'the petitioner') under Section 115 CPC against
the order dated 17.08.2011/23.11.2011 passed by the Additional
District Judge, Chabra, District Baran in Civil Execution Case
No.01/2009 titled as "Ram Chandra Vs. Amrita Bai", whereby the
sale deed in pursuance of the decree for specific performance has
been directed to be registered and the amended cause title in
relation to legal representatives of decree holder was directed to
be filed.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that Ram
Chandra had filed a suit for specific performance against the
respondents-defendants Amrita Bai, Gulam Hussain, Rehmtulla,
Karmali Bhai Alias Peer Mohammad, Tayer Ali and Sakina, who
were legal representatives of Peer Bhai. The trial court decreed
the suit on 09.10.1968 i.e. On 15.09.1995 the decree holder
deposited the balance sale consideration after a long delay of
about 27 years. Even if the said amount is deemed to be
deposited in pursuance of the order dated 28.02.1995 passed by
(Downloaded on 12/12/2023 at 08:49:15 PM)
(3 of 4) [CR-94/2012]
the executing Court, then the said amount was also deposited
after 7 months. So, the decree could not be executed against the
petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that some of the respondents-defendants were residing
outside India but the plaintiff wrongly procured the order with
regard to serving the summons through publication in daily
newspaper 'JUNG' published and circulated in Pakistan. So, service
on the respondents-defendants was not sufficient. So, the decree
passed against the petitioner who is son of Karmali Bhai Alias Peer
Mohammad (one of the son of Peer Bhai) is inexecutable. The
petitioner filed the objections, but the Executing Court did not
entertain the same. So, the orders of the executing court be set-
aside.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the judgments passed in the case of V. S. Palanichamy
Chettiar Firm Vs. C. Alagappan reported in 1999 AIR (SC)
918 and in the case of Onkar Nath and Anr. Vs. Basheer and
Ors. reported in AIR 1986 P&H 152.
Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the
arguments advanced by Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
and submitted that the Executing Court has rightly passed the
impugned orders. The decree has been executed and registry has
been done in favour of the plaintiff. So, the present revision
petition being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by Learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the
respondents.
(4 of 4) [CR-94/2012]
The petitioner had earlier filed the objections regarding
execution. The said objections were dismissed on 20.07.1999.
Thereafter, a writ petition was filed which was also dismissed by
this court on 31.07.2008. After that, petitioner has raised the
objections regarding delay in depositing the balance sale
consideration and service of summons upon the respondents-
defendants. In my considered opinion, when the trial court has
deposited the balance sale consideration, it is deemed permission
regarding deposition and the trial court has rightly ordered for
substituted service by publication in daily newspaper 'JUNG'
published and circulated in Pakistan, as the respondents-
defendants were resident of Pakistan. Thereafter, registry has also
been done in favour of the plaintiff. So, the present revision
petition being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed, which
stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
