BALRAJ MALHOTRA Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision has been directed against the order dated 22.5.1999 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon, who ordered for the auction of house bearing MCJ No. 3844 as per the schedule mentioned in the order itself.

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Raj Kumar, respondent No. 1, filed a suit for rendition of account against Jagdish Rai and others. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC for the attachment of property of judgment debtors. In those proceedings, Mehnga Ram, who was none else but the father of Jagdish Rai, stood surety. Decree was passed which was upheld upto the High Court and the order of the High Court is dated 20.1.1995. The plaintiff filed an application for final decree on 8.12.1998 and a sum of Rs. 41,455.66 was found payable to the decree-holder along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 1.12.1971. The final decree was passed against Jagdish Rai. It was not satisfied, as a result Raj Kumar filed an execution on 10.2.1999 against Jagdish Rai and others. Mehnga Ram, who stood surety for his son Jagdish Rai, died on 14.8.1998. The house in question originally belonged to Mehnga Ram and after his death it was inherited by present petitioner Balraj Malhotra, Jagdish Rai and two others in equal shares. Raj Kumar decree-holder wanted to get money by the sale of the property i.e. the house of Mehnga Ram. Objections were filed on behalf of Balraj Malhotra, which were dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.5.1999 for the reasons as given in paragraph 2 of the impugned order :-

(3.) FACTS in this case are not much in dispute. The dispute is how to drag the litigation which is being done by the petitioner. Admittedly, Mehnga Ram stood surety for Jagdish Rai. The house belonged to Mehnga Ram and after his death this property was inherited by the petitioner to the extent of 1/4th share. 14/th share of the property was inherited by Jagdish Rai, respondent No. 2. Therefore, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 Jagdish Rai along with other co-owners are liable to pay the decretal amount to respondent No. 1 Raj Kumar.