LAL SINGH Vs. GURMAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 16.08.2012 [Annexure P/4] passed by the Executing Court whereby Objection petition filed by Judgment Debtor No.1 [respondent No.1 herein] was accepted holding that the Judgment Debtors are liable in equal shares despite the fact that there is no such finding to that extent and also for setting aside order dated 4.2.2015 [Annexure P/7] whereby application filed by the petitioner for issuance of directions to J.D. No.1 to make the payment, was dismissed.

(2.) Facts relevant to the present controversy; that a suit for recovery was decreed by the Court below and Execution Petition was pending. Objections were raised by Judgment Debtor No.1, Gurmail Singh that he was not liable to make the payment of entire decretal amount, rather the pronote and receipt were obtained in equal shares by both the Judgment Debtors and as such, J.D. No.1 was liable to make payment of one half of the decretal amount and that amount has already been deposited by him and thus, JD No.1 is not liable to make any payment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Executing Court has proceeded beyond the jurisdiction because there was no such decree that the Judgment Debtors are liable to make payment in equal shares. Rather, the suit of the plaintiff for recovery was decreed against the defendants. The liability was intended to be fastened upon both the defendants and in execution proceedings, both of them are liable to make the payment of entire decretal amount. On this point, reliance was placed upon the judgment from Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Om Parkash son of Shaitan Singh Vs. Surender son of Mehar Chand and Ors, 2013 172 PunLR 292 wherein such a view was taken.