R E RAMSAY Vs. PASUPATINATH MALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents obtained a consent decree-against the appellant in the following terms:

(2.) In execution of the decree the respondents realised Rs. 25,000/- by sale of the Schedule B property. Thereafter, the present execution case was started by them for recovery of the balance of Rs. 1,39,028-11-6 pies and their prayer is for realisation of the amount by sale after notice to the judgment-debtor and other partners of all the interest and share of the judgment-debtor in the partnership known as and carried on under the name and style of Searsole Goal and Industries Company as per and under the registered deed of partnership dated 28-5-1950. An objection was raised under Section 47, Civil P. C. by the appellant to this prayer for execution on the ground that his interest in the partnership cannot be realised and sold in the manner as prayed for and that the only way in which the decree-holder can realise any part of the decree from the interest in the partnership is by proceeding in the manner laid down as provided in Order 21, Rule 49, Sub-rules (2), (3), (4) and (5). Another objection taken was that as the decretal amount was charged on certain properties, it was necessary for the decree-holders to obtain a further decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P. C. before they could proceed against the other properties of the judgment-debtor.

(3.) The learned Court below held that it was not necessary for the decree-holders to obtain arty order under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P. C. as the decree was a consent decree. It also held that there was substantial compliance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 49(2) and (4), In this view it dismissed the objection under Section 47, Civil P. C.