Hon'ble LODHA, J.—This revision petition is directed against order dated 12.2.09 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) No. 3, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 6/04 whereby an application preferred by the petitioner raising objections under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC in Execution Case No. 7/04 raising objections against execution of the decree, stands rejected.

2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that Shri Vishnu Shanker and four others filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 19.12.67 alleged to have been executed by one Shri Kundan Lal (since deceased) in favour of Ganesh Lal and Amba Lal. It was averred in the plaint that the disputed property belongs to Nandir Thakurji Charbhuja Ki Bari of Bada Paliwal Samaj and therefore, late Shri Kundan Lal had no right to sell it.

3. The suit was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 7.3.90.Aggrieved thereby two appeals were filed; one by Ganesh Lal & Amba Lal and another by legal representative of Kundan Lal, Shri Shiv Shanker.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties in the appeal preferred by Shri Ganesh Lal and Shri Amba Lal, entered into a compromise and submitted an application before the appellate court stating that the appellants/ defendants have paid an amount of Rs. 28,000/- as compensation to the respondents/plaintiffs and therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the suit preferred by the plaintiffs may be dismissed as withdrawn. The compromise arrived at was attested by the appellate Court. However, an application was preferred inter alia by the respondent/defendant Shiv Shanker S/o late Shri Kundan Lal & others, objecting the disposal of the appeal in terms of compromise so also withdrawal of the suit. That apart, during pendency of the appeal on 11.3.91, the court observed that the compromise arrived at between the parties cannot be attested without issuing notice in terms of Order 1 Rule 8(4), CPC and accordingly, the appellants therein were directed to get the notice published in the newspaper "Prat Kaal."

5. Thereafter, the matter remained pending for publication of the notice. No steps were taken on behalf of the appellants therein for publication of the notice and therefore, on 2.6.92 the court observed that no proceedings can be taken on the compromise arrived at and therefore, the same was ordered to be filed and the matter was posted for arguments on appeal.

6.On 2.5.94 the counsel appearing for the appellants pleaded no instructions stating that since the appellants have entered into compromise, they have not appeared in the matter. Noticing the statement made as aforesaid, vide order dated 5.7.94, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal for default in appearance.

7. The appeal preferred by L.Rs. of Kundan Lal, Shri Shiv Shanker also stands dismissed by the appellate Court on merits. However, it is stated that a second appeal preferred by Shiv Shanker being No. 112/95 is pending decision before this Court.

8. The decree holder Vishnu Shanker & Ors. filed an application for execution of the decree. The petitioner herein who had purchased the property from Shri Ganesh Lal during the pendency of the appeal filed objection petition under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 CPC, resisting the execution of the decree inter alia on the ground that the persons who have filed the execution proceedings are not the same persons, who had filed the original suit. The application was contested by the decree holders by filing reply thereto. The application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 8.5.97 holding that the applicants being the persons other than original decree holders, are not entitled to file the execution proceedings.

9. Aggrieved by order dated 8.5.97 the decree holders preferred a revision petition being 234/98 before this court. After due consideration this Court opined that the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to pass the order holding execution proceedings itself not ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document