ROOP CHAND JAIN Vs. PUSHPA DEVI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard Sri S. O. P. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the revisionist.

(2.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the District Judge dated September 4, 2006 whereby the petitioner's application under Section 24 C. P. C. has been rejected.

(3.) I do not agree with the submission advanced from the side of the applicant revisionist. As regards the alleged transfer of the decree by the decree holder in favour of somebody else, it makes no difference so long as the decree of the Court exists in the name of the decree holder and not the transferee. This fact is not disputed that the decree prepared by the Court is still existing in the name of the decree holder. Therefore, the fact that the decree holder has transferred the decree in favour of a third party would not have any adverse effect upon the execution case and executing Court is wholly justified in proceeding with the execution matter pending before it. Second point of argument also does not appear to have much force because if the execution application preferred before the Court alongwith a copy of the decree, is found to be valid and all the steps required for further proceeding in the execution case are complete on the record, the Court has no option but to proceed in accordance with law. It is not necessary that the physical presence of the decree holder or his Counsel should be there before the Court while passing each and every order in that case. The Court is duty bound to proceed in the execution matter if the decree is valid and the steps required under law are complete. Therefore, to say that the Court is proceeding in the execution case without physical presence of the decree holder or his Counsel, is not such a circumstance which can make the Court to draw a presumption of bias or prejudice against the Presiding Officer of the executing the Court.