PARAMJEET SINGH vs MEGHA RASTOGI

ALL these appeals by Sri Paramjeet Singh are directed against order dated 10 January, 1997 passed by District Forum, Badaun in Execution Case Nos. 9, 8, 7 and 6 of 1995 arising out of Complaint Case Nos. 63, 61, 62 and 64 of 1993 respectively. The appellant was not a party to the complaint case which was decided by the District Forum holding that the complainant-respondents in all these appeals were entitled to recover some amounts from two partnership firms in which Sri Raghubir Singh brother of appellant-Paramjeet Singh is a Managing Partner. The District Forum was approached by the complainant-respondent in each of these cases to execute the order of the District Forum against the property of Sri Raghubir Singh which was described to be a house situate in Badaun in which, according to the complainantrespondent he had l/3rd share.

SRI Raghubir Singh did not comply with the orders passed by the District Forum in the complaint case. Consequently, the District Forum directed that 1/3rd share in the house in question said to belong to SRI Raghubir Singh should be attached and thereafter sold by auction. At that stage the present appellant filed a detailed objection before the District Forum taking various objections to the attachment and sale of l/3rd share in the house. According to him, the house was joint Hindu family property in which apart from the three sons of late SRI Jaimal Singh two of his daughters also had share and in which the appellant was living alongwith his brother Sardar Ravinder Pal Singh and the entire household effects which were in the house belonged to them. No part of the house-hold effects belonged to SRI Raghubir Singh who was not residing in the house. Initially on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant-respondent in the execution case before the District Forum an order was passed by one Member of the District Forum on 23 October, 1996 saying that l/3rd portion of the house should be attached and sold by auction through police. Later on, the objection of the present appellant detailed order was passed by the President of the District Forum alongwith one of its Members on 10 January, 1997 up-holding the order passed on 23 October, 1996. In this order, after noticing the various objections raised on behalf of the present appellant, the District Forum took the view that since the earlier order had been passed by only one Member of the Forum and was, therefore, invalid, the same order was being passed by the President and one of the Members. There is no determination whatso-ever in the impugned order dated 10 January, 1997 of the other objections which were raised by the present appellant in the written objections filed in the execution proceedings.

Mr. Deepak Mehrotra has appeared before us on behalf of the appellant while Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta has appeared on behalf of the complainant-respondent No. 2 m each of these appeals. What has been urged with some emphasis by Mr. Gupta is that, inasmuch as, Sri Raghubir Singh admittedly had a share in the house it was competent for the District Forum, to have passed the order of attachment and sale of the property for ensuring execution of the order made in the complaint case. To this extent no objection can be taken by the appellant (sic.) but what has to be considered by the District Forum in a situation like the present is to require the parties to place some evidence in respect of their respective claims and to arrive at its own conclusion, in a prima facie manner, about the claim made by a complainant that the property against which proceedings were being taken was owned to that extent by the person against whom the order was sought to be enforced and the extent thereof and also about the correctness or otherwise of the objection taken to the execution proceedings by a third person who claims that his property is being proceeded against in respect of an order made by the District Forum in proceedings to which he was neither a party nor was in any manner concerned with the dispute involved in the complaint case.

IN the present appeals it is not in dispute that as far as the appellant Sri Paramjeet Singh is concerned he was not a partner in the two firms in respect whereof the order of the District Forum is being executed. Since the order passed by the District Forum is deficient in the sense that it does not determine/ on the basis of any evidence which may have been brought before it and for reasons recorded in the order for the conclusion that I/3rd portion of the house in question deserved to be proceeded against by attachment and auction sale, the order is set aside.

THE appeals are allowed and the orders dated 10 January, 1997 passed by the District Forum are set aside. THE matter of execution is sent back to the District Forum for re-determination in accordance with law at an early date. We, however, direct that 1/3rd share in the house shall continue to remain attached till the disposal of the objections of the appellant by the District Forum. Let this order be placed on the file of Appeal No. 196 of 1997 and its copies placed on the record of Appeal Nos. 197, 198 and 199 of 1997. Copies of this order be made available to the learned Counsel for the parties within three days. Appeals allowed.