(1.) This appeal, which has been argued well on both sides and fully in all its details, raises a very interesting and important question.
(2.) The appeal relates to the respondent's right to execute a decree for ejectment. The decree was passed in respect of the disputed premises, comprising one go-down in the ground floor of Municipal Premises No. 68, Burtolla Street. Calcutta. It was obtained by the then landlords Indramoni Debi and others (Trustees) against the tenant (judgment-debtor) Chitra Gupta Press on May 12. 1961 Thereafter, the present respondent No. 1. Bhagirathi Debi Agarwalla, purchased the disputed premises from the said landlords Indramoni Debi and others (Trustees), who are the other respondents in this appeal, under a conveyance, by which the entire interest of the said landlords in the disputed premises passed. This conveyance was dated March 30, 1963. On May 17, 1963, the purchaser Bhagirathi applied for execution of the above decree for ejectment and, along with the said application for execution, filed an application for leave to execute the same on substitution in place of the original decree-holders Indramoni Debi and others (Trustees), her vendors. After service of notice on the judgment-debtor, the present appellant Ambika Prosad Saxena, entered appearance and filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure on July 18, 1963, alleging inter alia that the judgment-debtor Chitragupta Press was the sole proprietary concern of his predecessor, Kamta Prasad Saxena. who had died on October 5, 1960, that is, during the pendency of the ejectment suit in question, and in whose place there was no substitution therein, and that the applicant for execution. Bhagirathi Debi Agarwalla, had no locus standi to execute the above decree, as under the law, she was not entitled to that right.
(3.) To this petition of objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there was a rejoinder by Bhagirathi, denying, in effect, the objector Ambika Prosad's contentions.