A party seeking impleadment as a legal representative in execution proceedings must clearly establish their right or interest; a belated claim based on an unverified, unregistered Will that relates to different property rather than the decretal land is insufficient to stall the execution of a final decree.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the applicant/proposed defendant seeking setting aside of the order dated 06.03.2026 (Annexure P5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda/Executing Court, whereby application filed by the petitioner to implead him as LR of defendant/judgment debtor, has been dismissed.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Executing Court was in patent error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner as it failed to appreciate that the deceased judgment debtor namely Sukhdev Singh@ Ranjodh Singh had executed the Khangi Will dated 22.06.2004 (Annexure P3) in favour of the petitioner in respect of the suit property. As such, the petitioner had valid right to pursue the Execution Application being LR of the judgment debtor. It is submitted that the said Will had been executed by the judgment debtor in favour of the petitioner in respect of the suit property in view of the services rendered by the petitioner to the deceased judgment debtor Sukhdev Singh @ Ranjodh Singh.

On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that judgment debtor Sukhdev Singh @ Ranjodh Singh has left behind his natural LRs, the same being Raj Singh @ Balraj Singh (son) and Harjot Kaur @ Guddi (daughter).

It is further submitted that in view of the above-said Will dated 22.06.2004, the petitioner is entitled to pursue the Execution Application being legal heir of Sukhdev Singh. It is further submitted that the said Will has not been challenged or disputed by anyone, in any manner till date, before any competent authority and it is the first and the last Will of the deceased.

Ld. counsel further submits that even otherwise, the impugned order is not maintainable in terms of judgment of this Court in Sunil Kumar Jain v. Abdul Karim, (P&H) : Law Finder Doc ID # 23886, wherein it is held that:

“2. Briefly put, Amar Nath, predecessor in-interest of the petitioners filed appeal against the order of the Rent Controller dated January 27, 1984 before the Appellate Authority, Sangrur. During the pendency of the appeal, Amar Nath died on July 5, 1984. The petitioners, who are his grand-sons, claimed to have succeeded to the estate of the deceased on the basis of Will dated March 9, 1973, and filed an application on September 7, 1984, for being impleaded as legal representatives of deceased Amar Nath the appellant. Another application claiming themselves to be the legal representatives was filed by Shrimati Naroti Devi, widow, Shrimati Padma Devi, Shrimati Sudesh Jain and Shrimati Nirmal Aggarwal, daughters, on January 25, 1985. The appellate Authority instead of holding a summary enquiry as to the respective claims of each set of legal representatives chose to hold regular trial to find out as to who of these are entitled to be impleaded as legal representatives of Amar Nath, deceased. The Appellate Authority, Proceeding in this manner, finally held that the Will as set up by the petitioners, is not proved thereby holding that the petitioners have got no right to represent the deceased-appellant. The application filed by Shrimati Norati Devi and others for being brought on record as legal representatives, too, was dismissed being not within limitation.

XXX XXX XXX

6. I find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as regards scope of enquiry in terms of Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil procedure Code. There was no need to hold an elaborate enquiry which is domain of Civil Court. Even if the Appellate Authority had any doubt about the genuineness of the Will, it could safely implead Shrimati Norati Devi and others for purposes of the eviction application leaving the parties to get their claims determined in a Civil Court. Order rejecting both the applications for being impleaded as parties is wrong. Article 120 of the Limitati