JOLLY THARIAN Vs. KURUVILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by judgment debtor No. 7 in O.S. 154 of 1976, of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Parur. She is respondent No. 8 in E.A. 770 of 1994 filed by the auction purchaser for delivery of the property pursuant to the confirmation of sale in his favour. Overruling her objections the executing court allowed E.A. 770 of 1994 and ordered delivery of the property excluding a building therein to the auction purchaser and postponing the delivery of the building until C.R.P. 2469 of 1994 pending in this court was decided.

(2.) The State Bank of India, hereinafter called the decree holder obtained the decree for amounts due to it from M/s. Trio Packaging Company, a partnerships which judgment debtor No. 7, the petitioner herein is a partner. Judgment debtor No. 1 was the firm and judgment debtors 2 to 10 were the partners of the firm. The decree was for recovery of amounts specified in the decree with costs of the suit from the judgment debtors and the decree schedule property, an asset of the firm. The decree also directed the decree holder to sell the property first and to realise the amount due under the decree and for the balance made the partners, the other judgment debtors personally liable. What we are concerned with the present proceeding is the C schedule to the decree, an extent of 8.29.500 acres of land with building thereon.

(3.) The decree holder applied for execution of the decree. In that petition notice under O.21 R.66 of the Code of Civil Procedure was ordered to the judgment debtors. On receipt of notice judgment debtors 1 and 2, namely, the firm and a partner appeared. Subsequently, the executing court found that no steps have been taken against judgment debtors 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. That included the present revision petitioner. The execution petition was dismissed as against those judgment debtors for want of steps. Similarly it was dismissed also against judgment debtors 4 and 10, two other partners. There was no tenable objection from judgment debtor Nos. 1 and 2 hence the property was proclaimed for sale. The property was sold and the same was purchased by the court auction purchaser. The court auction purchaser subsequently assigned portion of the property to others. The application for delivery was made by the court auction purchaser and his assignees. It was that application that was allowed by the court below which is challenged in this revision.