JIT RAM SHARMA Vs. GYAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the orderdated 23.12.1989 passed by Shri Y.S. Jonwal, Sub-Judge 1st Class. Delhiwhereby he has upheld the objections filed under Order 21, Rule 58 readwith Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the respondentNo. 2 herein-Shri Lekh Ram.

(2.) The short facts leading to the filing of this revision petition arethat the petitioner-Jit Ram Sharma-filed a suit for permanent injunctionagainst respondent No. 1 herein-Gyan Chand-on 24.6.1968 restraining himfrom encroaching upon the private gali in question and raising constructionover the same. The said suit was decreed vide order dated 22.9.1971 passedby Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi. It appears the respondentNo. 1-Judgment Debtor-started violating the injunction order and decreedated 22.9.1971 and the petitioner-Decree Holder-filed an execution petition against the Judgment Debtor, viz., respondent No. 1 praying for removalof the alleged encroachment construction. During the pendency of theexecution petition, the objector respondent No. 2-Shri Lekh Ram-hereinintervened and filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure staling therein that the propertysought to be attached for satisfaction of the decree of the suit has beenpurchased by him even prior to the passing of the decree in the main suit in1991 and, therefore, he was the owner of the property. Since the objectorwas not a party to the suit filed on 24.6.1968 by petitioner against respondentNo. 1 in which the decree for injunction had been -passed, he was not bound by such decree and, therefore, execution proceedings could not be initiatedagainst him. According to the objector, a decree for permanent injunction isalways a personal decree and it is against the personal acts of the party,which cannot be attacted or linked with the property. The objections raisedby respondent No, 2 in the execution petition have been upheld vide impugned order and the trial Court has observed that the D.H. may file a separatesuit against the objector/applicant for this purpose as the construction/obstruction cannot be removed under the present decree which is totally apersonal decree against the J.D. Sb. Gian Chand against his personal acts.Being aggrieved against this order upholding the objections, the petitioner Decree Holder has filed the present revision petition.

(3.) Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted thatthe respondent No. 2 being a transferee of the property from the originalJudgment Debtor is equally bound and liable to be proceeded against in theexecution petition. Learned Counsel has relied upon Section 52 of theTransfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 50 the Code of Civil Procedure.