RAJENDERPRASHAD Vs. DEVI DAYAL RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. Arguments heard.

(2.) The instant appeal on special leave has been filed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High court whereby the high court upheld the findings of the courts below dismissing the objections raised on behalf of the judgment debtors Rajender Prashad and others against the validity of the ex-parte decree.

(3.) Undoubtedly, there was an award made by an arbitrator in respect of certain matters referred to the arbitrator relating to the sale of goods to the defendant partners, wherein one of the partners was present and that award was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, for making the award a rule of the court. In that proceeding Sukhdeb Singh and Jai Dayal were made parties out of the six partners of the partnership firm, respondent 3. The award was made a rule of the court. The decree was transferred to the court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Gurgaon for execution. Appellants Filed objections to the effect that the transferee court cannot execute the decree inasmuch as the decree was an ex-parte one and secondly, the appellant Rajender Prashad was not a party to the decree and no summons of the said proceedings was served on him and, as such, he was completely shut out from raising his objections against the decree. It was contended in this connection by drawing our attention to the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as to Order 21 Rule 50 (1 (b) that this decree could not be executed against the personal property of Rajender Prashad and others. Undoubtedly, in clause (b) of Order 21 of Rule 50 there is a provision that decree can only be executed if he is adjudged as one of the partners. In all these proceedings, particularly, in the order passed by Shri R. C. Bansal, Sub- judge, First Class, Gurgaon, he has elaborately considered the matter and has come to a Finding to the following effect: