PRAKASHAK MADHU PRAKASHAN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 3 filed suit for permanent injunction in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8, CPC. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 11.1.1998. The defendants in suit filed appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 12.5.1999, They preferred Second Appeal. The Second Appeal was dismissed by this Court on 25.5.1999. The defendants further preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 4.10.1999. The plaintiff-repondents filed an application for execution of the decree. The petitioner filed objection under Section 47 of CPC alleging that he was not a party in the suit and as such the decree is not binding and the decree cannot be given effect to. The executing court rejected the objection on 27.3.2001. The petitioner preferred revision and the revision has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.4.2001.

(2.) I have heard Shri R.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the petitioner was not party in the suit, the decree was not binding. The suit was decreed in representative capacity and the operative portion of the decree was as follows : QeZ e/kq izdk'ku jksgrd ds }kjk izLrqr dh x;hvkifRr;k /kkjk 47 lh-ih-lh- vk/kkjghu gSa A vr% lO;; [kkfjt dh tkrh gS en~;wu ij ewyokn la[;k 672@98 esaikfjr fu.kZ; o fMh fnukafdr 11&1&1999 vUrxZr vkns'k Afu;e 8 lh-ih-lh- izfrfuf/k gSfl;r ds gksus ds dkj.kvkifRrdrkZ en~;wu ij dkfcys ikcUnh gS A en~;wu e/kqizdk'ku jksgrd dks cky Hkkjrh 'kCn ds vkxs ihNs dksbZ 'kCn tksM+dj iqLrd ds izdk'ku] eqnz.k] izn'kZu ,oajk"Vh; 'kCn ds iz;ksx dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS A