(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the Order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Dharwar dated 6-3-1962 in Special Dharkhast No. 23 of 1959 (Execution Petition) on his file. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this case may be briefly stated as follows: -A Civil Suit for partition (Civil Suit No. 21 of 1954 on the file of the Civil Judge, S. D. Dharwar) was filed by the guardian of the plaintiff Waman Aswatharao Patil who was minor at the time of the institution of the said suit. That suit related to partition of moveable and immoveable properties with relief for recovery of possession. It appears that suit ended on a compromise and on the basis of the compromise, a consent decree was passed on 25-6-1956. In that suit (C. S. No. 21 of 1954) the respondent Madhavarao Narasingarao Patil was the power of attorney holder on behalf of the guardian of the minor Plaintiff. In the compromise decree, one of the terms of the decree was to the effect that the Defendant should pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- to the Respondent Plaintiff. This term along with the other terms of compromise have been incorporated in the operative portion of the decree. Sometime after the compromise decree, the respondent filed (execution petition) Dharkhast petition No. 23 of 1959 in the same Court for the recovery of the said amount. The Petitioner (the judgment-debtor) raised objection to the execution of the decree on the ground that the Respondent being not the decree-holder within the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, he was not entitled to execute the decree. The executing Court has repelled this contention of the judgment-debtor (petitioner) and directed the execution of the decree to proceed. It is this Order of the executing Court that is now challenged in this Civil Revision Petition by the Judgment-debtor.
(2.) Sri Kulkarni, the learned Advocate for the petitioner urged that the respondent not being the decree-holder is not entitled to execute the decree. In support of his proposition no decision has been brought to my notice by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He however contended that the authorities relied on by the executing court are inapplicable to the case. The lower Court has relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Vythilinga v. Board of Control Thiagarajaswami Devasthanam, reported in AIR 1932 Mad 193 and also on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ajudhia Prasad v. U. P. Government, reported in AIR 1947 All 390. In the first case it has been laid down by the Madras High Court that a decree-holder need not be a party to the decree. It is enough if the decree confers some right enforceable under the decree upon some persons mentioned in it. This ruling was followed by the Allahabad High Court in tile second case mentioned above wherein Their Lordships held that a decree-holder need not be a party to the suit and that a person in whose favour an Order capable, of execution is made would be a decree-holder. That was a case for damages filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant who was a Government servant. The trial Court while dismissing the case of the Plaintiff had made an order with regard to costs in the following terms:
(3.) I respectfully agree with the above observations that a decree-holder need not be a party to the suit. If the decree confers upon some one some enforceable right, he is entitled to execute the same. Therefore, it is not possible for me to accept the contention advanced by the learned advocate for the Petitioner.