NRIPENDRA KUMAR Vs. NAUMONI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition of revision is directed against the order dated 3 -7 -1951 by which the Subordinate Judge, L. A. D., directed the Munsiff of Barpeta to hold a sale in execution. The petition is by one of the three judgment -debtors. The facts leading to the petition are as follows :

(2.) IT is contended now on behalf of the petitioner that there has been no proper disposal of the objection put in by the petitioner -judgment -debtor and that in any case, the order of the Court directing sale of 1/3rd share of the property is illegal and therefore the order is not sustainable. So far as the first objection is concerned, the order of 17 -5 -1951 by which the Court virtually disposed of the point on which the decree holder and the petitioner -judgment -debtor were in issue is no doubt wanting in an express statement that the objection of the petitioner judgment -debtor is disposed of. On the other hand, it is obvious that the objection was in fact disposed of as the decree holder was allowed to take steps in furtherance of the execution proceeding. The irregularity may be regarded as material only if the petitioner -judgment -debtor has been prejudiced on the merits.

(3.) THIS , I think, is the proper way of looking at the matter. The objection of the judgment -debtor has been disposed of and if the order is correct and no prejudice has been caused to the judgment -debtor, there would be no point in reversing a correct order. The point, therefore, to be considered is whether the decree -holder could proceed against 1/3rd share of the property belonging to the judgment -debtor for recovery of 1/3rd of the decretal amount still due.