Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 12.04.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajsamand, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. and Order 21, Rule 29 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been rejected.
(2.) The petitioner's father Laxmi Lal filed a suit for specific performance of contract against one Radhu Lal, which was dismissed by the trial court on 05.02.1973; the first appeal filed by Laxmi Lal was allowed by the appellate court on 18.11.1978, against which, second appeal was filed by the defendants; during pendency of the second appeal, Laxmi Lal expired in the year 1983; on an application filed by the appellant-judgment debtor under Order 22, Rule 4 C.P.C. the legal representatives of Laxmi Lal named therein were impleaded as party; the second appeal was dismissed on 23.05.1991. The execution proceedings, which were stayed in the second appeal, were restarted on an application filed by the decree-holders. The executing court on 23.02.2007 executed the sale deed in favour of legal representatives of Laxmi Lal as the judgment-debtors failed to comply with the directions contained in the decree; the judgment-debtors raised objections against the draft sale deed, which objections were dismissed by the executing court on 18.01.2010, against which, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1696/2010 was filed, which was disposed of directing the executing court to execute supplementary sale deed taking care of the discrepancy in the Khasra number of the suit property; the judgment-debtors raised objections regarding non-impleadment of the legal representatives of the decree-holder, which objection was dismissed on 19.03.2010 and pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the supplementary sale deed was executed on 27.03.2010, resulting in, the satisfaction of decree for specific performance as passed by the first appellate court.
(3.) It appears that in the meanwhile, after the sale deed dated 23.02.2007 was executed by the executing court and before the supplementary sale deed dated 27.03.2010 was executed, seven sale deeds dated 11.02.2010 were executed by the legal representatives of the deceased Laxmi Lal in favour of various purchasers. The said purchasers were impleaded as party to the execution proceedings by the executing court by its order dated 05.12.2013. Where after, the present petitioner filed an application on 21.03.2014 under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. and Order 21, Rule 29 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. inter alia, indicating the family tree of the deceased Laxmi Lal and alleging that her name has deliberately not been indicated and she came to know about the same sometime back as she is residing at Bombay; applicant is a legal representative and has share in the property of the deceased Laxmi Lal; on account of nonimpleadment, in the sale deed executed by executing court, her name has not been included and she is being deprived of her share. It was claimed that it is necessary to add her name as legal representative of the deceased Laxmi Lal and 1/4th share be registered in her name and till such time, the said proceedings are concluded, the proceedings in the execution may be stayed. Ultimately, a prayer similar to what was indicated in the application was made for impleadment.;