The court established that all parties must be notified in execution proceedings, and a Trust can assert rights over property based on valid agreements.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

'A. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2022 (Annex.3) passed by the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu, in Execution Suit No.03/2015 - [Seth Jugal Das Ganeriwala Charitable Trust vs. Shri Ram Pathya Granthagar Samiti and Ors.];

B. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents herein to implead all the original decree holders and or the heirs and successors of deceased decree holders as parties in their application under Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure; And thereafter fresh notices in term of Form 7 of Appendix E of the Code of Civil Procedure be issued to all such impleaded original decree holders and or the heirs and successors of deceased decree holders to the application under Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure for their appearance; and upon return of rule and after hearing all parties on the application filed by the respondents; fresh orders be passed by the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu, in Execution Suit No.03/2015 - [Seth Jugal Das Ganeriwala Charitable Trust vs. Shri Ram Pathya Granthagar Samiti and Ors.] on the application under Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure;

C. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner.

D. Cost throughout may kindly be awarded in favour of the Petitioner.'

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that on 04.06.1988, father of the present petitioner alongwith 42 others, filed a suit for possession, mesne profits and for wrongful use and occupation of the suit property, against the defendant/judgment debtor-Shri Gram Pathya Granthagar Samiti. The property in question is a piece of land, which was purchased by common ancestors of the parties, on which a Monument 'Chhatri' and rooms were constructed.

2.1. On 09.04.2003, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ratangarh dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, and during the pendency of which 08 plaintiffs, including father of petitioner, expired, while the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiffs were not made parties to the said suit. Thereafter, remaining 35 plaintiffs filed an appeal against the aforesaid dismissal. During the pendency of the said appeal 15 more appellants/plaintiffs expired on different dates.

2.1.1. On 29.03.2011, the Addl. District Judge reversed the decree passed by the trial court and allowed the Civil First Appeal, passing the decree for recovery of possession of suit property 'Chhatri' in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants against the respondent/judgment debtor (defendant). The respondent no.1 herein filed S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.265/2011 before this Hon'ble Court against the said judgment and decree dated 29.03.2011. Petitioner-Lalit Kumar and his brothers on 11.02.2014 jointly filed an application for impleadment in the said Civil Second Appeal, and the same was allowed on 22.09.2014. This Hon'ble Court however, on 09.12.2014 dismissed the appeal with costs and confirmed the decree of possession passed by the learned court below.

2.2. Some of the original plaintiffs and heirs, successors of deceased plaintiffs lost confidence in their power of attorney holder and reposed their confidence in favour of the present petitioner Lalit Kumar and asked him to take possession of the said 'Chhatri' disputed property in question. On 09.02.2015, the present petitioner in his own capacity asked the respondent/ judgment debtor to hand over the posses