AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raj Mohan Singh, J
[1]. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that legal representatives of respondent 1(i) are already on record as after the
demise of Haro widow of Bachna Ram, her LRs namely Prem Chand, Subhash Chand and Ramesh Kumar have succeeded to the estate of Haro and
the aforesaid persons are already on record as legal representatives of deceased Bachna Ram. Respondent No.2 Amar Chand had died issueless and
there was no legal representatives of Amar Chand to succeed his property. In view of above, LRs of respondent Nos.1(i) and 2 are not required to be
brought on record.
[2]. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the order dated 16.08.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, whereby
permission to withdraw the appeal was granted without granting liberty to file fresh one on the same cause of action.
[3]. Petitioners/decree holders filed execution of judgment and decree dated 12.01.2017 passed by the trial Court in a suit for permanent injunction.
Judgment and decree was upheld upto the High Court in RSA No.2042 of 2008. The executing Court while deciding the execution framed issues.
Issue No.1 was in respect of maintainability of execution. Executing Court while deciding the issue No.1 held that decree in question was obtained by
playing fraud upon the Court. Ultimately, the execution was dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2016.
[4]. Petitioners/decree holders filed appeal against the order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the executing Court. Appeal was sought to be withdrawn due
to wrong mentioning of provision. Permission to withdraw the appeal was granted, however liberty was not given to file fresh on the same cause of
action.
[5]. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Lal Singh Vs. Ajit Singh and another, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 650 to contend that permission to file
suit/appeal is an inbuilt mechanism. Once the withdrawal of the appeal is permitted, the Court would be under obligation to grant permission to file
fresh appeal on the same cause of action.
[6]. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the import of aforesaid precedent with reference to any case law to the contrary.
[7]. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order to the extent of not granting permission to file fresh
appeal on the same cause of action. Normal consequences to follow.