IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Decided on : 25.08.2025 Johnpreet Singh ……Petitioner Versus Jaspal Kaur & Ors.

……Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate and Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate For the petitioner. DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Samrala in execution case No. Exe/210/2013 dated 09.02.2010, whereby Deepshikha, Jaspal Kaur and Milanveer Singh have been held to be legal representatives of deceased Gursharan Singh; whereas petitioner herein and his brother Balpreet Singh have been found to be assignees of the rights of Deepshikha.

2. A perusal of paper-book would reveal that suit for specific performance filed by one Gursharan Singh was decreed by this Court in RSA No. 1118 of 1999 vide judgment dated 11.08.2009. During pendency of that RSA, Gursharan Singh had expired on 09.06.2004 and his daughter Deepshikha was impleaded as his legal representative. Said Deepshikha was represented through her special power of attorney Jaswinder Singh.

3. Claiming to be assignees of the decree under Deepshikha - daughter/ legal representative of decree-holder Gursharan Singh, Johnpreet Singh (petitioner herein) and his brother Balpreet Singh had filed the execution. During that execution, one application was moved by Balwinder Kaur, sister of Gursharan Singh claiming to be beneficiary, based upon the will dated 30.10.2001; whereas another application was moved by Jaspal Kaur and her minor son Milanveer Singh claiming that Jaspal Kaur was legally wedded wife of Gursharan Singh and that Milanveer Singh was her son from the loins of Gursharan Singh.

4. The Executing Court declined the application of Balwinder Kaur, though allowed the application of Jaspal Kaur and Milanveer Singh, who are ordered to be impleaded as legal representatives of Gursharan Singh to the extent of their share, vide order dated 19.12.2013. The said order was assailed by Balwinder Kaur in Civil Revision No. 1354 of 2014; and by Balpreet Singh & Johnpreet Singh in Civil Revision No. 2538 of 2014. 5. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court after referring to the provisions of Section 2 (11) of CPC defining legal representatives; and Order 22 Rule 5 CPC prescribing the procedure for determination of question as to the legal representative, disposed of the above two civil revisions vide order dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure P9) by observing as under:-

“13. In view of above, any person, having a right to represent the estate of the deceased person, falls within the ambit of ‘legal representative’ as defined under Section 2(11). The definition includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. The scope of inquiry to determine the issue w.r.t. the legal representative is summary as held by Supreme Court in Varadarajan’s case (supra). Thus, the Executing Court was required to hold summary inquiry to determine the legal representative. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the Executing Court has not based its order upon the marriage certificate produced on record or on the entries in the mutation proceedings. Rather, the Executing Court has relied upon certain admissions made by execution petitioners. Even if the conclusions recorded by the Executing Court are to be held valid, the same are not backed by cogent reasons. Observations w.r.t. admissions are foreign to the record of the case. There is no such admission made by Johnpreet Singh or Balpreet Singh. The finding recorded is not based on record.

14. Mr. Joshi may be right in contending that even if Johnpreet Singh and Balpreet Singh are held to be assignees to the right of Deep Shikha, they cannot be allowed to represent the estate that fell to the share of Jaspal Kaur and Milanveer Singh, the minor son but he also