. No. 03 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: WP(C) No. 1163/2024 Narinder Singh s/o late Amir Singh R/o Village Jagti Nagrota Jammu at present House No. 4/90 Indira Colony, Lakkar Mandi Road, Janipur Jammu. ….Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Z. A. Mughal, Advocate V/s 1. Union of India through its secretary, Ministry of Defense, South Block New Delhi 2. Chief of Army Staff, Army Headquarters, South Block, New Delhi. 3. Principal Controller of Defense Accounts (pensions), Allahabad. 4. Officer In-charge Records, Records office, Bombay Engineer Group, PIN-900463 C/o 56 APO. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE ORDER 16.12.2025 1. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “the AFT”), whereby the execution application filed by the petitioner seeking enforcement of the judgment dated 23.02.2023 was dismissed as not maintainable. 2. Brief facts, necessary for adjudication of the present petition, are that the mother of the petitioner, namely Pushpa Devi, filed Original Application No. 77/2018 before the AFT seeking release of full family pension w.e.f. 12.05.2016 after correction of official records by incorporating her name as the legally wedded wife of Ex. Hav. (Hony Nb Sub) Amir Singh, who expired on 18.05.2016. 3. The AFT, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon appreciation of the pleadings, allowed the Original Application vide judgment dated 23.02.2023, holding Pushpa Devi entitled to grant of family pension from the next date of death of the deceased employee, i.e., 12.05.2016. 4. However, it is not in dispute that during the pendency of the Original Application, Pushpa Devi expired on 26.03.2021. The said fact was never brought to the notice of the AFT, nor was any application filed for bringing her legal representatives on record. Consequently, the Original Application came to be decided on the assumption that the original applicant was alive. 5. The petitioner asserts that he had informed his counsel about the demise of his mother and had also signed an application and affidavit for impleadment as legal heir, which, according to him, were drafted but never filed due to lapse on the part of the counsel. 6. After the pronouncement of judgment dated 23.02.2023, the petitioner filed an execution application before the AFT seeking enforcement of the said judgment, however the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2024 holding as under:- “6.Whether applicant has stepped into the shoes of Decree Holder is a question of fact? There may be more than one legal representative but details are not forthcoming in the present case. There is no averment that apart from the applicant, there is no other legal representative of the applicant-Pushpa Devi. Assuming that applicant is sole legal representative of Pushpa Devi, he can pursue the execution application only after he is impleaded as her legal representative. Admittedly, Original Applicant-Pushpa Devi died during the pendency of the Original Application and no steps were taken by the applicant to get himself impleaded. Even after the decision of the main case, steps have not been taken by him and thus, the argument is rejected. For the aforementioned reasons, the execution application is not maintainable in law and is dismissed.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that family pension is a statutory right and not a personal relief, and that the petitioner, being the sole legal heir, cannot be denied execution merely on account of procedural lapses, particularly when such lapses occurred due to negligence of counsel. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The right to family pension is a statutory right and not a purely personal relief, the same can be enforced only by a person who is legally recognized as entitled thereto. At the same time, it is equally well settled that execution proceedings can be initiated only by a decree-holder or by a person who has legally stepped into the shoes of the decree- holder. 10. In case titled Jaladi Suguna (Dead) through LRs v. Satya Sai Central Trust (2008) 8 SCC 521, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “When a respondent in an appeal dies, and the right to sue survives, the legal representatives of the deceased respondent have to be brought on record before the court can proceed further in the appeal. Where the respondent- plaintiff who has succeeded in a suit, dies during the pendency of the appeal, any judgment rendered on hearing the appeal filed by the defendant, without bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent - plaintiff on record, will be a nullity. “ 11. In the present case, admittedly, no steps were taken either during the pendency of the Original Application or after its disposal to bring the petitioner on record as the legal representative of the deceased applicant. The execution application was filed straightaway without seeking such substitution. 12. The plea that the lapse occurred due to negligence of counsel, though unfortunate, cannot be a ground to dispense with mandatory procedural requirements. The Supreme Court in Salil Dutta v. T.M. and M.C. Pvt. Ltd., (1993) 2 SCC 185, has held that a litigant cannot always avoid the consequences of procedural lapses by attributing fault to counsel. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed as under:- “The advocate is the agent of the party. His acts and statements, made within the limits of authority given to him, are the acts and statements of the principal i.e. the party who engaged him. It is true that in certain situations, the Court may, in the interest of justice, set a side a dismissal order or an ex-parte decree notwithstanding the negligence and/or misdemeanour of the advocate where it finds that the client was an innocent litigant but there is not such absolute rule that a party can disown its advocate at any time and seek relief. No such absolute immunity can be recognised. Such an absolute rule would make the working of the system extremely difficult.” 13. In view of the above legal position, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the AFT that the execution application, as filed by the petitioner, was not maintainable in law. 14. However, it is clarified that dismissal of the execution application does not nullify the substantive adjudication made by the AFT vide judgment dated 23.02.2023. The entitlement to family pension, having already been adjudicated, survives and devolves upon the legal heirs of the deceased Pushpa Devi, subject to their being duly brought on record in accordance with law. 15. The petitioner is, therefore, at liberty to avail appropriate remedy under law, including seeking impleadment as legal representative of the deceased applicant and pursuing consequential relief before the competent forum. 16. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu is upheld 17. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, with liberty as aforesaid. (Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Judge Jammu: 16.12.2025 Bir*