RAMJI LAL Vs. HET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS giving rise to this revision petition are that the suit for a permanent injunction filed by the decree--holders (respondents Nos. 1 to 6) in this Court was dismissed in August 1959. Their appeal was allowed in September 1960 and the suit was decreed. They took out execution on 1st October, 1960, but the same was stayed by this Court in R. S. A. No. 1492 of 1960 filed by the judgment--debtors. In September, 1969, the R. S. A. was dismissed. Thereafter, another application for execution of decree was filed. The judgment--debtors raised objections. The matter again came up to this Court. Finally, the execution appeal filed by the judgment debtors was dismissed in February 1975. During the proceedings above--said, the execution of the decree remained stayed by the order of this Court. Thereafter, on 15th December, 1975, the present execution application was filed. Upon the objections raised by the judgment--debtors, the following issues were framed by the Executing Court:-

(2.) THE Executing Court decided the issues against the judgment debtors. Hence, this revision petition by one of the judgment debtors.

(3.) APPLYING these principles to the facts of this case, there can be no two opinions that since the previous applications were never disposed of and in fact they were kept pending because of the stay orders passed by this Court, therefore, the present application has to be considered as an application for revival of the previous ones. All the same, learned counsel for the judgment debtor laid great emphasis on Column No. 6 of the present application requiring the decree--holders to state whether any previous execution application was made or not. This column was left blank. In other words, the pendency of the previous applications was not indicated. Be that as it may, since the record of the previous applications makes it amply manifest that none of them was disposed of, therefore non--mentioning of their pendency in Column No. 6 of the application cannot be fatal. The decision of the executing Court on Issue No. 1 is accordingly affirmed.