- (1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners-applicants challenging the order dated 21.05.2012 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge Cum Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhabra, Baran (hereinafter referred to as "the executing court") in execution petition No.58/2008, whereby the executing court has dismissed the application of the petitioners for impleading them as the party-defendants under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 22 Rule 4 of CPC.
(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that one Shri Chhagan Lal had two sons named Chandra Prakash Ji, and Girdhari Lal. The said Chandra Prakash Ji had only one daughter named Sharda Bai, whereas the said Girdhari Lal had five sons named Vimal Kumar, Rajendra Kumar, Surendra Kumar, Sher Singh and Jinendra Kumar. One suit being No.35/92 came to be filed in the civil court by the said Jinendra Kumar for partition of the properties of late Shri Chhagan Lal, in which the plaintiff Jinendra Kumar alleged that he was the adopted son of Shri Chandra Prakash Ji. The said suit was filed against the ten defendants i.e. the heirs of Shri Girdhari Lal Ji, Smt. Sardar Bai wd/o Chhagan Lal and Smt. Sharda Bai d/o Chandra Prakash Ji.
(3.) In the said suit, the said defendant No.10 Sharda Bai did not file her appearance and did not contest the suit. The trial court after considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit against the defendant Nos.1 to 9 and held that the respondent No.2-plaintiff was entitled to her 1/2 share in the properties left by Shri Chhagan Lal, vide the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2001. It appears that subsequently the said decree was challenged by the contesting defendants by way of appeal, however the said appeal was dismissed and thereafter the final decree was passed in the suit. When the final decree sought to be executed, the present petitioners who happened to be the sons of the original-defendant No.10 Sharda Bai, filed an objection petition alleging inter alia that the preliminary decree was obtained by fraud and the final decree was passed on the basis of compromise which had taken place between the respondent No.2 Jainendra Kumar i.e. the plaintiff and one of the heirs of Girdhari Lal i.e. Rajendra Kumar, who happened to be the defendant No.2 in the suit. The said objection petition was dismissed by the executing court on 07.01.2010, which order came to be challenged by the present petitioners by filing the writ petition being No.2499/2010. It appears that the said writ petition was also dismissed on 22.10.2011 and thereafter the present petitioners filed the application before the executing court seeking their impleadment as the party-defendants under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. The said application has been dismissed by the court vide the impugned order, against which present petition has been filed by the petitioners.;