91

44

V

Civil Revision

NoA427 of 1994

4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB

AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

4

Civil Revision NoA427 of 1994

l

Dateof OrderSSOctober ²⁰⁰⁹

l

Avta Singhand others

Petitioners

1

Versus

0

Sohan Singhand others

espondents

C

I

CORAM

HONBLE

MR

JUSTICE

RAJIVE BHALLA

C5

I

Present

Mr Arun Jain SeniorAdvocatewith

Mr Amit Jain Advocate

for the petitioners

Z

Mr Rahui Sharma Advocate

forrespondent

no

Q

RAJIVE

BtLA

J

08

The petitionerschallenge^an order dated 09

1994 passedby

the Sub Judge Ist Class

Kapurthaladismissingthe

application for

7

Z

setting^aside the judgment^and decree ^{dated 12} 091 ⁹⁹⁰ passedagainst

DarshanSinghthe deceasededefendantrl

as barredbytime

Before prcceediIlgto decide the dispute^on

ments It WOUIdbe

appropriate ^to

narrate

the

facts

Sohan Singh and Jagtat Singh

respondents

nol

and 2 filed Civil Suit No 43 of 31

1987againsttheir

brother Darshan Singhclaimingequalrightsin the propertyieft behind iov

their father Kabul Singh Darshan Singhcontestedthe suit byailegingthat

Kabul Singhhad executed ^a will dated 23

J86 bequeathing

the entIre

property ^In his favour

During^the pendency^{of the suit}

Darshari Singh

soid a partof the suit Iand to petitioners

no

to 3 vide sale deeds dated

21

0 1988 and 238

1988 and moi1gaged

a parf of the suit Iand vide

rnortgage

deeds dated 101J21 988 and 141 21 987 to peliiioners

nc

8110

. Rashmi

2012.08.09 15:04

True Scanned

Copy Of the

Original

PHHC,Chandigarh

JOYTI RANI

2016.03.28 16:23

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

92

Civil Revision

NoA427 ^{of 1994}

A

1

5

Before the

suit could

be

decided

Darshan Singh passed away

1

Respondents ^no 1 and ^{2 and}

Resham Kaur widow of Darshan Singh

respondent

no 8 entered into a compromisewherebytheyagreedthat

respondents

no 1 and 2 would be ^owners

to the extent of 213dshare and

Resham Kaur would be ^owner

to the extent of 113 share of the suit

property ^{A decree dated 12091 990 was} accordingly

drawn up ⁱⁿ terms

of this compromise

In

execution proceedingsinitiatedby respondents

nol

and 2

0

C

warrants for

joint possession^{were issued}

The petitioners ^filed

I

C0

obJectionsclaiming^{that as} they^{are bona6de}purchasers^and mortgagees

I

without knowledgeof the pendingsuit theyare

not bound bythe decree

Z

under execution

The executingcourt ^dismissed the objectionsas ^not

maintainablebut held that the remedyif any is to file ^an applicationfor

r

being

impleaded

as Iegal

of Darshan Singhin the original

I

suit

a5

The petitionersthereafter filed ^an applicationunder Order 22

7

Rule 4 ^as amended bythe Punjaband HaryanaHighCourt prayingthat^as

they^are Iegalrepresentatives^{of Darshan} Singhdeceased

the judgment

tl

and decree dated ¹² 09 1990 should be set aside and the suit should be

tried on

merits

The applicationwas

accompaniedby^an applicationfor

condonationof delayunder

Sections 5 and 14 of the LimitationAc

The

petitioners

asserted that ^as they^are bonafide purchasers

and inortgagees

unaware of the pehdencyof the civil suit theyare not bound bythe decree

dated 12091990

which has been obtainedbyabandoning

the defence set

up by Darshan Singh

The respondentsopposed the applicationby

asserting^{that the} application^IS barred by ^Iimltation

On

merits

the

respondents

pleaded^{that Darshan} Singhand ^his widow ^were dulyserved

and had filed their written statement

It was

the dutyof ccunsel

lor

DarshanSinghto inforrnthe Court about the death of Darsrjan Singh lhe

. Rashmi

2012.08.09 15:04

True Scanned

Copy Of the

Original

PHHC,Chandigarh

JOYTI RANI

2016.03.28 16:23

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

93

Civil Revision NoA427

of 1994

3

j

petitioners

who ^are

vendees pendenteIitefrom Darshan Singhare bound

1by^thejudgment^{and decree} passedagainst^theirvendor

The trial court dismissed the applicationbyholdingthat though

the petitioners

can

be impleaded^as Iegal

of Darshan

Singh^deceased

the application^IS

barred by time

The

triai court

therefore

did not consider the prayer for settingaside the judgmentand

decree and proceedingwiththe suitafresh

0

Counsel for the