M.Katju - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 8.8.1994 and 16.12.1996 Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that one Raghunath Prasad filed a Suit No. 23 of 1972 against Shamser Bahadur Sinha for Specific performance of agreement to sell in respect of a house. The trial court dismissed the suit but the first appeal was allowed against that judgment on 7.4.1975. In the second appeal, this Court on 5.7.1982 reversed the judgment of the first appellate court and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Raghunath is said to have died on 1.9.1979. The petitioners claimed to be his legal representatives. This Court vide order dated 20.11.1980 had directed the substitution of the petitioners in place of Raghunath Prasad. Respondent No. 3 had also been impleaded since she claimed to be an assignee from Raghunath Prasad. Against the judgment of the Court, respondent No. 3 went in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 10.2.1989 allowed the said appeal. True copy of the said Judgment is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the Supreme Court has reversed the judgment of the High Court and decreed the suit. However, the Supreme Court has not decided as to whether Smt. Saraswati Devi Gupta or the petitioners in the present writ petition will get to the benefit of the decree in the suit.
(3.) WHEN the matter was sent in Execution, the petitioners filed an objection, true copy of which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, to which the reply has been given by Smt. Saraswati Devi, which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. By the impugned orders Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition, the objection of the petitioners in the execution case has been rejected, hence this writ petition. In my opinion, it is yet to be decided as to whether the benefit of the decree in the suit filed by Raghunath will go to his legal representatives or the alleged assignee, and that in turn will depend on whether there was a genuine and valid assignment by Raghunath in favour of Smt. Saraswati Devi. Mere impleadment of a person does not confer any right on him, except the right to be heard in the proceeding. No doubt, the petitioners did not file appeal in the Supreme Court but they were parties there.;