KAILASH CHANDER Vs. GOPI KRISHAN KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed to challenge the order of Sub-Judge Ist Class, Panipat, dated August 17, 1977, whereby preliminary issue framed "as to whether the objection petition by the three judgment-debtor is legally maintainable" was decided against the decree-holders.

(2.) The objection petition was filed by the judgment-debtors who were, in fact, the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtor, on notice issued under Order 21, Rule 22 read with Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code). The learned counsel for the petitioners urges that no notice legally was required to be issued to the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor. The contention of the learned counsel is unassailable. Order 21 rule 22(b) lays down that where an application for execution is made against the legal representative of a party to the decree, the executing Court shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show cause why the decree should not be executed against him. A bare reading of this provision shows that it is only when the execution is filed against the legal representatives that notice is required to be issued. But, when the judgment-debtor dies during the pendency of the execution proceedings, there is no provision which requires either impleading of the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor as party to the execution proceedings or issuance of notice to them. The notice issued by the executing Court to the judgment-debtors, therefore, was not justified and was wholly without jurisdiction. However, that matter has hardly any bearing so far as the main dispute between the parties is concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that all the objections taken by the judgment-debtors are barred, either by res judicata or other provisions of the Code and, therefore, the issue framed ought to have been decided against them. I am, however, unable to appreciate this contention. The judgment-debtors or the legal representatives, whether any notice is issued or not, are entitled to file any objection which they desire, under Section 47 of the Code and the same have to be disposed of in accordance with law. The objections may be liable to be dismissed on the principle of res judicata or barred by time or on any other technical ground. All the same it is a particular objection which has to be decided and disposed of. There is, therefore, no warrant for maintaining that no objection petition was maintainable by the judgment-debtors.

(3.) This petition consequently must fail and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties, through their counsel, have been directed to appear in the executing Court on September 25, 1978. No costs.