CHAGAN RAJ GOUTAM KUMAR Vs. K.VEERANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned civil revision petition is filed by the decree holder challenging the order of the executing court passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Section 47 of CPC.

(2.) The present case on hand is a helpless decree holder who is made to run pillar to post to enforce the decree which is in his favour passed in O.S.No.69/1997. The present petitioner filed a money suit seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.65,340/-. The respondents/judgment debtors did not contest the proceedings. The trial court proceeded to pass an ex-parte decree. The present respondent/judgment debtors filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC questioning the order placing him ex-parte pending suit. The said application on enquiry was rejected. The respondents/judgment debtors did not challenge the order passed by the learned Judge on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC.

(3.) The learned Judge has proceeded to examine the contentions of the present petitioner/decree holder and accordingly decreed the suit directing the present respondents to pay the amount. It is borne out from the records that respondents did not challenge the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.69/1997. Since the decree passed in O.S.No.69/1997 has attained finality, the present petitioner initiated execution proceedings for recovery of decreetal amount by filing E.P.NO.49/2002. The judgment debtors have resisted the execution proceedings by filing I.A.No.3 under Section 47 of CPC. The executing court without calling upon the decree holder to produce the certificate of reconstitution has partly allowed the application holding that, in the absence of reconstitution, the petitioner was not entitled to file a suit seeking recovery of money. Accepting this defence, the executing court has allowed the application in part and dismissed the execution petition.