C SABAPATHY Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the 3rd judgment debtor/3rd defendant. The respondent/the decree holder Indian Bank filed E.P.No.80 of 1995 on 12.04.1995, to realise the amount as per decree dated 23.06.1984, against defendants 2, 5 and 7. Since the Bank was unable to realise the amount, it has filed E.A.No.458 of 1998 seeking to amend the Execution Petition by impleading the 3rd defendant/3rd judgment debtor viz., the revision petitioner herein as respondent in the said Execution Petition. The Executing Court, came to the conclusion that the decree holder filed the E.A. to implead the 3rd judgment debtor as respondent in time, and so allowed the said application on 21.11.2000. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner herein, who is the 3rd judgment debtor/3rd defendant has filed this revision petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/3rd judgment debtor has contended that inasmuch as the suit is of the year 1983, which was decreed on 23.06.1984, Execution Petition was filed against judgment debtors 2, 5 and 7 on 12.04.1995 and thereafter E.A.No.458 of 1998 was filed to implead the 3rd judgment debtor as the respondent in the Execution Petition on 21.09.1998 beyond the period of limitation and so, the order of the Executing Court allowing the amendment petition is not proper.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Respondent/decree holder argued that inasmuch as E.P.No.80 of 1995 was filed against the judgment debtors 2, 5 and 7 to realise the amount decreed in the suit and during the pendency of the said petition, in view of the fact that the bank is unable to realise the amount, application E.A.No.458 of 1998 to implead the 3rd judgment debtor as respondent in the Execution Petition was filed and therefore, the amendment petition allowed by the Executing Court does not call for any interference by this Court.