NAIB TEHSILDAR PIRTHI SINGH Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit filed by Harbans Singh, respondent, a decree for permanent injunction restraining Dalip Kaur, respondent No. 2, from alienating the property in dispute was passed on January 21, 1983. In spite thereof, Dalip Kaur transferred the said land to respondent No. 3 vide registered sale deed dated April 11, 1983. Respondent No. 1, therefore, filed the present execution application to enforce the said decree and to take contempt proceedings against the said two respondents, the witnesses and the Sub-Registrar, who registered the sale deed. The application was opposed by the petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 2 to 7, but the executing Court holding the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 guilty of violation of the decree, set aside the sale and ordered the attachment of the salary of the petitioner and the property in dispute. Aggrieved thereby, Pirthi Singh, Sub-Registrar, has come up in this Revision.

(2.) A bare perusal of the provisions of Rule 32 of Order 21, Code of Civil Procedure, would show that action under it can be taken only against the judgment-debtor and that too for the enforcement of the decree. The executing Court was not competent to take contempt proceedings either against the judgment-debtor or against the third party under the said provisions. This petition is, consequently, allowed with costs and the impugned order, so far as the petitioner is concerned, set aside.