Kuldeep Gulwani v. Babita Chawla

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner/objector against the judgments passed by the executing court and the first appellate court; dated 12.1.2012 and 9.8.2012 respectively; by which objections filed by the petitioner against the execution of judgment and decree dated 10.8.2009 have been dismissed.

2. The memo of parties in the suit reads as under:- “ IN THE COURT OF MS.RAVUBDER BEDI: JSCC CUM ASCJ CUM GUARDIAN JUDGE (SOUTH): PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI CS-983/09 2014:DHC:5553 Smt. Babita Chawla wife of Shri Trilok Chawla R/o 4-IV/9, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi 11 00 24... Plaintiff

VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 11 000 1.

2. Land & Development Officer, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 11 0 001.

3. Mr. Kuldeep son of Shri Gian Chand R/o 4-IV/11-12, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi

4. Shri Arjun Dass c/o Smt. Savitri wife of Shri Jassa Ram R/o 4-IV/13, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-11 0024.

5. Shri Bharat Singh R/o 4-IV/15, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi 110024... Defendants”

3. The subject suit was a suit for declaration alongwith the relief of possession and injunction whereby the plaintiff/respondent no.1 claimed that she is the owner of the entire Lavatory Block situated on the ground floor adjoining to the quarter no.4-IV/9, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. This suit was decreed and the operative part of the judgment dated 10.8.2009 reads as under:-

4. The petitioner is Sh. Kuldeep Gulwani and claims that he was not made a party to the suit and therefore the decree is not binding upon him. The objector/petitioner states that he was never served in the suit. Before this Court, it is additionally argued that the suit was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.

5. It is trite that a judgment passed between the parties to the suit is res judicata and objections which have to be taken on merits by means of filing of a written statement in the suit cannot be taken as objections to the execution of the judgment and decree. I have already reproduced the memo of parties of the suit above in which defendant no.3 is shown as one Mr. Kuldeep S/o Sh. Gian Chand and resident at a particular address which is part and parcel of the same property in which the disputed Lavatory Block was situated. It is not disputed before this Court that Mr. Kuldeep as stated in the memo of parties in the suit is the son of Sh. Gian Chand i.e parentage of Mr. Kuldeep is correctly mentioned in the memo of parties in the suit though the surname Gulwani is not found. The present petitioner/objector admits before this Court that his parentage and address is the same as mentioned in the memo of parties in the suit. Thus mere non-mention of surname cannot make any difference once defendant no. 3 is properly named with proper parentage and at the correct address. Also, I would like to at this stage again put on record that it is not disputed on behalf of the petitioner that he was residing at the address as stated in the memo of parties in the suit. Therefore, once the objector is a defendant in the suit, a judgment and decree has been passed against him after recording that he was served, the only way in which such judgment and decree can be challenged is by getting the judgment and decree set aside on an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) or by means of filing of an appeal to the higher court questioning the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2009. Neither of these two processes have been invoked by the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner cannot file objections to the judgment and decree much less on the grounds such as mis-joinder/non-joinder of parties etc.

6. No other issue is pressed or urged before this Court.

7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, much less for this Court to exercise extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. Dismissed.