BASANTI BAI Vs. VISHNUKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition arises under the following circumstances. The present Petitioner Basanti Bai is the wife of the judgment debtor Rameshwardayal against whom a decree of Gordhandas, father of the non -applicant No. 1 was being executed in the Court below. In execution a certain house was attached. The Petitioner raised objection to the attachment of the property claiming that it belonged to her. The executing Court decided the objection in her favour. The decree -holder against that order, came to this Court in revision (C.R. 208 of 1952).

(2.) NOW it is admitted that Gordhandas who belonged to Shivpuri District had died on 3 -2 -(1953.' Neither this Court nor the 'Vakil' engaged by Gordhandas was aware of his death and the arguments were heard in ignorance of that fact. The question arises whether the order dated 15 -10 -53 passed in Civil Revision No. 208 of 1952(A), Should be declared to be null and void?

(3.) A different view has however been taken in 'Baksho v. Piaro', AIR 1920 Sind 120(E), and in 'Naoo Mai v. Tarachand', AIR 1933 Sind 200(F). Mr. Motilal Gupta drew my attention to a recent Pakistan case 'Mohammad Saddat Ali v. Administrator Corporation of City of Lahore', AIR 1949 Lah 186(FB) (G), where all the relevant rulings have been elaborately discussed and analysed and where the Full Bench came to the conclusion that Order 22, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to revisions.