Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74947 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2209 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Gupta @ Tunnaji Respondent :- Additional District Judge Ii Nd Ballia And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla,Sunil Kumar Dubey Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. One Bela Devi had instituted an Original Suit No.101 of 1973 against one Allahtala. The said suit was decreed on 26.11.1992. An Execution Case No.4 of 1995 was filed by one Ganga Prasad, the decree holder against the judgment debtor. A Civil Appeal No.8 of 1993 was filed by the judgment debtor against the said decree dated 26.11.1992. 2. According to petitioner, Bela Devi had executed two Will, one in favour of Ganga Prasad and another in favour of Shivnath Prasad. However, the last Will executed by her was in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of the said Will, the petitioner was made a party in Civil Appeal No.8 of 1993. An application was made by the petitioner for being made party in the execution proceedings also. 3. After the death of Ganga Prasad, his legal heirs were impleaded in the said execution proceedings, who during pendency of execution proceedings, had transferred the property to one Avinash Kumar Singh and Abhishek Kumar Singh, present respondents no.2 and 3. 4. The application moved by the subsequent transferee to be impleaded as a party in the execution proceedings was allowed along with application filed by the petitioner. Petitioner was aggrieved by part of the order dated 16.01.2012, by which, the respondents no.2 and 3 have been impleaded as a party in the execution proceedings. He preferred Civil Revision No.32 of 2012, wherein the Court below, after hearing the counsel for the opposite party, had proceeded to pass the order impugned on merit as none appeared on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner before the revisional Court. The revisional Court had recorded a finding that the petitioner has claimed to be the owner of the property in dispute on the ground of the Will deed. 5. Facts regarding the validity of sale deed and Will has been taken into account by the Court below while proceeding to decide the controversy between the parties. The sale deed being in favour of respondents no.2 and 3, they are naturally the necessary party in the matter, so their application was rightly allowed. Revisional Court after recording the said findings had allowed the application of the respondents no.2 and 3 by dismissing the revision. 6. I have perused the material on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the respondents no.2 and 3 had purchased the property in dispute from legal heirs of the decree holder. They are necessary party in the executing proceedings, as the property in dispute has been purchased by them during execution proceedings. The petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the property on the basis of the alleged Will executed by Bela Devi in his favour. It is for the Executing Court to decide the issue. The present proceedings are only against the order allowing the application of respondents no.2 and 3 as well as petitioner being impleaded as a party in the execution proceedings. 8. No case for interference is made out. 9. Writ petition is misconceived and same stands dismissed. 10. In view of the said fact, the Executing Court is hereby directed to proceed with the Execution Case No.4 of 1995 and decide the same in the light of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of Periyammal vs. V. Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507, within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. Registrar (Compliance) shall convey the order to the Executing Court, within 48 hours. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 SK Goswami Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad