The appellant wan an allottee of plot No. 3, Sector No. 2 measuring 25 x 50 situated at Gujjar Nagar, Jammu, in which she constructed two rooms, one Kitchen with a bathroom and was living therein. Respondent No. 1, started living in the said house with the appellant and ultimately threw her out of the possession of the said house. The appellant filed a suit against respondent No. 1. The suit was decreed by the learned District Judge, Jammu on 10th April 1992. Respondent No. 1 went in appeal, which was also dismissed by this Court Judgment dated 2nd February 1994. Respondent No. 1 filed a Letters Patent appeal, which too came to be dismissed on 29th March 1996. The appellant then filed an execution application before the Court of learned District Judge, Jammu, seeking the recovery of possession from the Judgment-debtor-respondent No. 1. During the course of pendency of the said execution application, the appellant executed a Sale Deed in favour of respondent No. 1, which came to be registered by the Sub-Registrar, Jammu on 19th July 1996. Through this Sale deed, the appellant sold out and transferred her rights and interest in the decree and the subject matter of the decree in consideration of rupees one lac in favour of respondent No. 1. After having purchased the rights of the appellant under the said decree, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 146 read with Order 21 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded and substituted in the execution proceedings for the original Decree-holder. The notice was issued to the appellant by the Executing Court and in objections to the application filed by respondent No. 1, she admitted the averments of the application of respondent No. 1 and conceded the impleadment of respondent No. 1 in the execution proceedings. Objections filed by the appellant bore thumb impression of the appellant as well as signatures of her Advocate, Mr. A. G. Sheikh. In support of her objections, she filed an affidavit duly attested by Public Notary Jammu, in which she was identified by her own Advocate, Mr. A. G. Sheikh as well as one more witness namely, Mohd Rafiq. After the filing of the said objections by the appellant, the Executing Court passed the following order: -

"14.8.96.

Counsel for the parties present.

In execution petition initiated by Misra Begum against Mohd Shaffi, an application supported by an affidavit accompanied by copy of the sale deed has been preferred in averring therein that he has purchased decree from Misra Begum vide sale deed dated and registered on 19.7.96 with sub Registrar, Jammu and consequently right of Misra Begum with regard to the property in execution of decree stood vested in him. He further contended that he may be substituted in place of Misra Begum as decree holder.

Notice of this application was, however, given to both Misra Begum and Mohd Shaffi. In response to the notice issued Misra Begum filed objections today and admitted the execution of the sale deed in respect of the decree passed in her favour and raised no objection in substituting Mohd Hussain purchaser of the decree in place of Misra Begum and the execution carried out at his instance. Similarly Mr. O. P. Thakur appearing for the judgment-debtor instead of filing the objections orally submitted at the bar to entertain no objection in substitution of Mohd Hussain in place of Misra Begum on the strength of the sale of the decree in respect of the decree. As such the application made by Mohd. Hussain is allowed and is ordered to be substituted in place of Misra Begum and necessary correction be also made in the Index. The application stand disposed of."

2. This order passed by the executing Court was never challenged by the appellant in any appeal or revision and thus attained finality and accordingly, decree was executed and satisfied, as has been submitted by the counsel for the respondent.

3. In the year 1997, on 19th May, the appellant instituted a fresh suit in this Court against sai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document