A party not included in the original suit cannot claim rights in execution proceedings; courts must ensure all necessary parties are present to avoid frivolous claims.

ORDER :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

By order dated 03.05.2024 notices were directed to be issued upon the opposite parties.

2. O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 and O.P. Nos. 20 and 21 have appeared through their counsels by filing vakalatnama. Notice upon O.P. Nos. 5 to 14 have been validly served. O.P. No.15 has left for his heavenly abode. Notice upon O.P. Nos. 16 to 19 have not been effected as yet and it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 that so far other opposite parties are concerned, they are subsequent purchasers and O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 are contesting parties and decree was in their favour and objection has been filed by Tara Devi-petitioner. As such this petition is being heard.

3. Heard Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. Rakhi Kumari and Akanksha Basundhra Raje learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 20 and 21.

4. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 25.02.2022 passed in miscellaneous civil appeal no. 01 of 2022 by learned District Judge, Chatra and also for quashing of the order dated 21.12.2021 passed by learned Sub-Judge-II, Chatra in miscellaneous case no. 06 of 2020 arising out of execution case no. 02 of 2010.

5. Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Draupadi Devi and others filed Title Suit No. 08 of 1994 before the Court of learned Sub-Judge-II, Chatra against the father of the petitioner and others with a prayer for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of possession. He further submits that the said title suit was dismissed and against that the plaintiffs have preferred title appeal being Title Appeal No. 44 of 2004 which was allowed by the order dated 22.02.2007 and the decree was passed in favour of the O.P. Nos. 1 to 4. He further submits that thereafter the plaintiff/appellant has filed Execution Case No. 02 of 2010 wherein the petitioner was not made party in the original suit as well as in the appeal. He then submits that even in execution case the petitioner was not made party so the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Case No. 06 of 2020 for stay of Execution Case No. 02 of 2010 however, the learned court by order dated 21.12.2021 has rejected the same. He further submits that by order dated 25.02.2022 the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2022 was dismissed. He then submits that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property. He further submits that both the orders dated 21.12.2021 and 25.02.2022 are bad in law. He submits that the learned courts have failed to appreciate that the petitioner happened to be the daughter of late Sukhdeo Pandey and she was not made party in both the proceedings and also in execution case inspite of that impugned orders have been passed which are against the mandate of law for that this petition has been filed. On these grounds, he submits that impugned orders may kindly be quashed.

6. On the other hand Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the petitioner happened to be the daughter of defendant no.1 namely, Sukhdeo Pandey and her father contested the suit as well as appeal and thereafter execution case has been filed. He further submits that same objection was earlier made in Civil Misc. Case No. 28 of 2018, Misc. Civil Application No. 106 of 2018 and Misc. Civil Application No. 107 of 2018 which were rejected. He further submits that the said appellate judgment was travelled to the High Court in S.A. No. 86 of 2007 filed by defendant no.1-Sukhdeo Pandey who happened to be the father of the petitioner and the said Second Appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 08.09.2022. In this background he submits that petition under section 47 C.P.C. was also filed by the petitioner in the execution case which was rejected by impugned order dated 21.12.2021 against that appeal was filed which was also dismissed by order dated 25.02.20