Civil Revision No. 4215 of 2004 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 4215 of 2004
Date of Decision: August 27, 2009
Paramjit Singh ......... Petitioner
versus
M/s Gobind Ram Anil Kumar and others .......... Respondents
Present:- Shri Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order
dated 22nd July, 2004 passed by the learned Executing Court whereby
objections raised by defendant No.6 were dismissed.
It is the case of the objector-defendant No.6, present petitioner,
that earlier objections were dismissed but now he has become major,
therefore, he wants to contest the petition himself. The objection was that no
application was filed by the plaintiff for appointment of Guardian under
Order 32 Rule 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, therefore, the
decree granted against defendant No.6, who was minor at the time of filing
of suit, is illegal, null and void.
The learned trial court dismissed the said objection and
aggrieved against the said order, defendant No.6 is in revision.
Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in the
suit which led to decree dated 12.11.2001 in execution of which the
Civil Revision No. 4215 of 2004 [2]
petitioner has filed objections, the argument raised on behalf of the
defendant was that defendant No.6 is not a minor. It was found on the basis
of matriculation certificate produced during the course of trial Exhibit D-1
that defendant No.6 was not a minor. Particular reference was made to Para
31 and 33 of the judgment in the civil suit and relevant discussion of such
argument reads as under:-
“31. Learned counsel for the defendants further urged that
defendant No. 6 Paramjit Singh was not the minor at the time
of filing the suit, as it is clear from Exhibit D1 and plaintiff did
not amend the plaint to remove this lacuna and the suit of the
plaintiff is not maintainable due to the above said reason.
Therefore, suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed.
33. …….. Here the plea of the defendants, that plaintiff firm
has not amended the plaint, as the defendant No.6 was not
minor at the time of filing the suit, has no force in the eyes of
law, as it have no any effect on the present case, if, the
defendant No. 6 is major and it is admitted by defendants and
even established by the document Exhibit D-1 by producing of
certificate of matric of defendant No.6 where from, it is clear
that the defendant No.6 was the major at the time of filing the
suit. Therefore, there is no any such need to amend the plaint
and it have no any effect on the case”.
It is, thus, contended that once the question regarding minority
of the petitioner has been examined in the civil suit, the petitioner cannot
raise such objection in the execution proceedings. It is argued that the
Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree passed, whereas such
objections have been raised by the petitioner which is against the decree in
which he was a party. It is also pointed out that earlier the petitioner has
filed objections which were dismissed and Civil Revision No. 2571 of 2003
was dismissed by this Court as well. Therefore, the present objection is
Civil Revision No. 4215 of 2004 [3]
another attempt to delay and defeat the execution of the decree.
In view of the finding recorded in the judgment, learned
counsel for the petitioner could not raise any meaningful argument in the
present petition.
In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or
material irregularity in the impugned order which may warrant interference
by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
August 27, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE