CHANDRAMMAL Vs. N.SRINIVASA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed by the assignee. The application filed under Order 22 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking leave of the Executing Court to permit the present petitioner to prosecute and contest the above execution proceedings is rejected by the Executing Court. The said order is under challenge.

(2.) The present petitioner No.5 - plaintiff is asserting right and title based on the decree passed in O.S.No.607/2000. The present petitioners claimed that the said suit was decreed and therefore, having acquired right and title in the suit schedule property filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking leave to permit him to prosecute the execution petition and complete the execution proceedings on behalf of the decree holders. The said application is not resisted by the original decree holders. The respondent has resisted this application. Learned Judge has proceeded to reject the application. While rejecting the application, the Executing Court was of the view that the present petitioner No.5 has already tendered oral evidence as R.W.2 in the capacity of the power of attorney holder. Therefore, the Executing Court was of the view that no purpose would be served if petitioner No.5 is permitted to come on record as a decree holder to prosecute and contest the case. On these set of reasoning, the Execution Court has proceeded to reject the application.

(3.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Perused the order under challenge.