[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lalit Kumar vs Lrs Of Krishna Devi (2026:Rj-Jd:13629) on 23 March, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:13629]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Execution First Appeal No. 3/2025
Lalit Kumar S/o Champa Lal Nahta, Aged About 64 Years,
Resident Of Ward No 27 Bhadra District Hanumangarh Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Krishna Devi, D/o Shri Indra Chand W/o Shri Kanwal
Singh Nahta Through Her Legal Representatives:-
1/1. Amit S/o Late Smt. Krishna Devi,
1/2. Rajneesh S/o Late Smt. Krishna Devi,
1/3. Alka D/o Late Smt. Krishna Devi,
1/4. Sukhmala D/o Late Smt. Krishna Devi,
1/5. Kanwal Singh S/o Shri Champa Lal Nahta,
All above resident of Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh At
Present Rajasthan Store, Railgate No.1, Mahaveer Sthan,
Post Siliguri, District Darjeeling
2. Rajneesh S/o Kanwal Singh Nahta, Resident Of Bhadra
District Hanumangarh At Present 3/412 Bada
Thakurdwara Second Floor Shahadra, Delhi
3. Umrao Devi D/o Manak Chand Surana, W/o Shri Ummed
Singh Nahta, Resdient Of Bhadra District Hanumangarh At
Present Shubham Buildwell Nilomani Fukan Road Block E
First Floor (1B) Guwahati
4. Abhinandan S/o Ummed Singh Nahta, Resident Of Bhadra
District Hanumangarh At Present Shubham Buildwell
Nilomani Fukan Road Block E First Floor (1B) Guwahati
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi with
Mr. Mahendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Samdariya
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
23/03/2026
1. The present execution first appeal has been filed aggrieved
of order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge,
Bhadra in Execution Petition No.07/2021 whereby objection
application under Order 21 Rule 97 to 102, CPC as filed on behalf
of applicant Lalit Kumar, stood rejected.
2. The case of the applicant was that the property in question
was purchased on 15.03.1991 during the lifetime of his father
Champalal. In fact, the property was purchased from the joint
(Uploaded on 29/03/2026 at 02:15:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13629] (2 of 4) [EXFA-3/2025]
family proceeds and was a benami transaction in favour of the
four alleged purchasers. The applicant being the legal
representative of Champalal, was in possession of the property in
question and had even rented out a part of the said property.
Therefore, in the absence of any decree against him, he could not
be dispossessed in execution of decree dated 15.07.2019. It was
further submitted that till the objections as raised by the applicant
are decided, the execution of this decree deserved to be stayed.
3. The learned Executing Court, while rejecting the application,
observed that in the suit proceedings, an application under Order
1 Rule 10, CPC was filed by some applicants, including the present
petitioner, on the same ground i.e. they being the coparceners of
the joint Hindu Family, were entitled to be impleaded. The said
application preferred by the applicants therein stood rejected vide
order dated 08.07.2016 which order stood affirmed in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.8790/2016; Lalit Kumar Nahata & Ors. vs. Mst.
Krishna Devi & Ors. (decided on 11.10.2018). The objections now
filed by the applicant on the same grounds could not be
entertained.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the reason assigned
by the learned Executing Court for rejection of the objections of
the applicant are totally erroneous as prayer for impleadment in
terms of Order 1 Rule 10, CPC and objections in terms of Order 21
Rule 97 to 102, CPC stand on a total different footing. Even if the
applicant was not held entitled to be impleaded in the suit
proceedings, that cannot curtail his right to remain in possession.
5. Counsel submits that although a specific objection was raised
by the applicant to the effect that he was in possession of the
(Uploaded on 29/03/2026 at 02:15:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13629] (3 of 4) [EXFA-3/2025]
property and had even let out a portion of the said property, the
learned Executing Court cursorily ignored the same and did not
even record any finding qua the same. Counsel therefore submits
that order impugned deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra Counsel for the respondents submits that all the
objections as raised by the applicant are the same which were
raised in his earlier application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC.
Therein, the Court recorded a specific finding that the suit in
question was for partition on the basis of a sale deed and hence,
the nature of the suit could not be changed on the application as
filed by the applicant. In view of the said finding, no new right
accrued to the applicant and hence, his objections have rightly
been rejected.
7. Heard the counsels. Perused the record.
8. It is an admitted fact that the decree in question, of which
the execution is sought, has been passed in a suit for partition on
basis of sale deed dated 15.03.1991 executed in favour of four
purchasers. The applicant who claims that the sale deed of Year
1991 was a benami transaction, admittedly, never ever prayed for
cancellation of the same.
9. It is evident on record that the applicant was aware of the
said sale deed right from the inception, still, even after the
rejection of his application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC in the Year
2018, he did not choose to lay any challenge to the same. Further,
vide order dated 11.10.2018 passed in the writ petition, the Court
specifically observed that there was nothing on record to
substantiate the plea of the petitioners that suit property was
purchased by their ancestors. The Court further observed that
(Uploaded on 29/03/2026 at 02:15:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13629] (4 of 4) [EXFA-3/2025]
avoidance of a fresh litigation cannot be a ground to invoke the
power under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC. Meaning thereby, at that point
of time itself, it was observed by the Court that the petitioners
were required to undertake some fresh remedy. However, no
remedy, whatsoever, was availed by the applicant qua sale deed
dated 15.03.1991. Having not done so, the applicant cannot now
be permitted to raise any objection qua the execution of decree
for partition, based on the said sale deed.
10. So far as the averment of the appellant of letting out the
property in question to a tenant is concerned, the present
objections have not been preferred by the so called tenant. Had
the tenant been aggrieved of the present order or any eviction,
appropriate remedy would have been taken by him. The applicant
cannot be permitted to claim any right of a tenant vide the
present objections.
11. This Court is of the clear opinion that the learned Executing
Court rightly observed that once application under Order 1 Rule
10, CPC of the applicant praying impleadment stood rejected, the
present objections raising the same grounds again could not have
been entertained.
12. No case for interference in order impugned dated 07.05.2025
is made out and hence, the present execution first appeal stands
dismissed.
13. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
50-KashishS/-
(Uploaded on 29/03/2026 at 02:15:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
