RAM NARAYAN BHATTAD Vs. KRISHNA BAI JHAVER HARIKRISHNA JHAVER D K JHAVER J K JHAVER V K JHAVER VIMALA JHAVER PUSHPA MUNDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Appeals are filed by the assignee-decree holder of the decree granted in C.S.No.28/1975 having aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned single Judge in various Applications. Since the issue raised in these Appeals are very narrorw one, namely, whether the Execution Petitions filed in E.P.Nos.58, 69, 70 and 71 of 1986 by the appellant in this Court without obtaining permission to have simultaneous execution of the decree are maintainable, we are not proposed to elaborate the facts as they are not to be decided except a few facts which are necessary to decide the issue.

(2.) The plaintiff/Andhra Bank Ltd., filed a suit in C.S.No.28/1975 for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,58,214.79 from the defendants, after obtaining a decree on 25.4.1979, directing defendants 3 and 4 and defendants 5 to 11, from out of the assets, if any, of the deceased R.S. Jhaver, who is the original defendant, in the hands of defendants 5 to 11. The appellant got assignment of the said decree from General Electric Co. of India, as there is a provision in the decree that defendants 2 and 3 and defendants 5 to 11 shall pay to the 4th defendant, the decree amount and that the 4th defendant be entitled to execute the decree on payment of 50% of the Court Fee payable at 75% of Rs.17,50,000/-. The assignee-decree holder filed E.P.No.121/1985 before this Court and the same was transferred to Sub-Court, Poonamallee and renumbered as E.P.No.80/1985. Thereafter, the appellant filed E.P. Nos.57, 58, 69, 70and 71 of 1986. The learned Master while considering the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents that simultaneous execution of the decree without obtaining permission of the Court and without notice to the judgment-debtor is not maintainable, held that the said objection raised cannot be sustained at all and the said objection cannot be raised at this stage. So, the respondents preferred Appeals in Application Nos.4701, 4715, 4705, 4710, 4717 , 4028, 4027, 4026, 4711, 4713, 4706, 4029, 4030, 4704 and 4719 of 1 990. The learned Judge in the common order impugned in the above Appeals held that the Execution Petitions pending before this Court are not maintainable as no permission was obtained for simultaneous execution of the decree in this Court as well in the Sub-Court, Poonamallee. Aggrieved against the said common order, the assignee-decree holder filed the above Appeals.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that neither under the Code of Civil Procedure nor under the Original Side Rules, the compelling decree holder has to file an Application to execute the decree obtained in the High Court.