Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Mamta Saini Vs Dhani Ram and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Punjab & Haryana HC
2026
Mamta Saini Vs Dhani Ram and OthersMamta Saini v. Dhani Ram and Others

Disposed¶19

Mamta Saini v. Dhani Ram and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2026ESA/86/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court; ESA-86-2025 (O&M); decided 09.07.2026; single judge Harkesh Manuja. Appellant Mamta Saini vs respondents Dhani Ram and others. Subject: dismissal of objector's objections in execution of a partition/injunction decree dated 05.08.2013 (First Appellate Court); objector is daughter of deceased defendant Somdev whose heirs were not impleaded in the final decree application of 06.12.2004. Key point: objections by a claimant through a deceased party to the suit are not third-party objections; wrong forum — civil revision, not appeal, is the proper remedy. Disposition: appeal disposed of with liberty to pursue appropriate remedy. No statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the appellant to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law, i.e., to prefer a civil revision against the impugned decision

Why is it important?

Since the appellant claims rights in the property of her deceased father Somdev, who was admittedly a party to the suit, her objections could not be treated as those having been preferred by a third party. ¶18

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the appellant to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law, i.e., to prefer a civil revision against the impugned decision

Issue for consideration

Whether the final decree dated 05.08.2013, passed without impleading the appellant as a legal representative of the deceased defendant Somdev, is bad in law and non-executable. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Since the appellant claims rights in the property of her deceased father Somdev, who was admittedly a party to the suit, her objections could not be treated as those having been preferred by a third party.

Key takeaways

Instead of filing the present appeal, the appellant needs to prefer a civil revision against the impugned decision.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ESA-86-2025 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 09.07.2026 (Harkesh Manuja J., oral). Mamta Saini appealed against orders dated 11.08.2025 and 21.08.2025 of the Courts below dismissing her objections in an execution petition filed in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2013 of the ld. First Appellate Court in a suit for partition and injunction. She contended that being the daughter of defendant Somdev (died 10.11.2004), the application for the final decree filed on 06.12.2004 omitted her as his legal representative, making the final decree dated 05.08.2013 bad in law and non-executable. Held: once the appellant claims rights in the property of her deceased father, admittedly a party to the suit, her objections could not be treated as those of a third party; accordingly, instead of the present appeal she needs to prefer a civil revision against the impugned decision. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

A

ESA-86-2025 (O&M)

--1--

127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ESA-86-2025 (O&M) Decided on:-09.07.2026

Mamta Saini ….Appellant.

vs.

Dhani Ram and others ….Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Anil Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the orders dated 11.08.2025 and 21.08.2025 passed by the Courts below, whereby, objections preferred at the instance of appellant in execution petition, filed in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2013 passed by the ld. First Appellate Court in a suit for partition and injunction, were dismissed. 2. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that she happened to be the daughter of one of the defendants, namely, Somdev, who died on 10.11.2004, whereas, the application for passing the final decree was filed much after his death on 06.12.2004 and that too, without impleading the appellant as one of his legal representatives, and ultimately the final decree came to be passed on 05.08.2013. Learned counsel thus, submits that the decree, having been passed without bringing all the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant on record, was thus, bad in law and non-executable.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through

SONIKA 2026.07.14 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

ESA-86-2025 (O&M)

--2--

the paper book.

Once, the appellant claims rights in the property of her deceasedfather (Somdev), who was admittedly a party to the suit, her objections could not be treated as that having been preferred by third party. As such, instead of filing present appeal, the appellant needs to prefer a civil revision against the impugned decision.

Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of, with liberty to the appellant to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

09.07.2026 sonika

(HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable: Yes/ No

SONIKA 2026.07.14 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

ESA-86-2025 (O&M)

--3--

SONIKA 2026.07.14 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the final decree dated 05.08.2013, passed without impleading the appellant as a legal representative of the deceased defendant Somdev, is bad in law and non-executable.¶12
2.
Whether the appellant's objections in the execution petition could be treated as those of a third party, given that she claims rights in the property of her deceased father Somdev, who was a party to the suit.¶18
The court held
Since the appellant claims rights in the property of her deceased father Somdev, who was admittedly a party to the suit, her objections could not be treated as those having been preferred by a third party.ratio¶18

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Orders dated 11.08.2025 and 21.08.2025 passed by the Courts below dismissing the objections preferred by the appellant in the execution petition¶12
Courts below · 11.08.2025 and 21.08.2025
Prior proceeding
Judgment and decree dated 05.08.2013 passed by the ld. First Appellate Court in a suit for partition and injunction, in pursuance of which the execution petition was filed¶12
Prior proceeding
Somdev, one of the defendants in the suit and father of the appellant, died on 10.11.2004¶12
Prior proceeding
Application for passing the final decree was filed on 06.12.2004, after Somdev's death, without impleading the appellant as one of his legal representatives¶12
Prior proceeding
Final decree came to be passed on 05.08.2013¶12

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Mamta Saini¶5
Munish Gupta, Anil Saini
respondent
Dhani Ram and others¶7

Coram

AI extract

HARKESH MANUJAauthor¶8

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Punjab & Haryana HC
Decided on: 9 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 23 Dec 2025
Case no.: ESA/86/2025
CNR: PHHC012112592025
Bench: Harkesh Manuja
Disposal: DISPOSED OF
Case type: ESA

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Harkesh Manuja

Savita Vs Vinod Chopra
8 Jul 2026
Rajandeep Kaur Vs Sukhwinder Singh
8 Jul 2026
Major Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.
8 Jul 2026
Kavita Vs Pankaj Yadav
9 Jul 2026
Manpreet Kaur Vs Jaideep Singh Naroo
9 Jul 2026
Rimpi Vs Parmod Kumar
9 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Mamta Saini v. Dhani Ram and Others, ESA/86/2025 (P&H), decided on 9 July 2026.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Procedural history5

Orders dated 11.08.2025 and 21.08.2025 passed by the Courts below dismissing the objections preferred by the appellant in the execution petitionCourts below · 11.08.2025 and 21.08.2025
Judgment and decree dated 05.08.2013 passed by the ld. First Appellate Court in a suit for partition and injunction, in pursuance of which the execution petition was filed
Somdev, one of the defendants in the suit and father of the appellant, died on 10.11.2004

View full history

Bench / Coram

HARKESH MANUJA

Parties & counsel