LAWS(HPH)-2000-8-9

KULDIP KUMAR Vs. ROOP PAL SHARMA

Decided On August 03, 2000
KULDIP KUMAR AND ORS Appellant
V/S
ROOP PAL SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners herein, are the judgment debtors before learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Bilaspur. It appears, decree passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 137/1 of 1997 dated 12th March, 1998 was sought to be executed in terms of execution petition No. 7/10 of 1998 by the decree holder Respondent herein The judgment debtors resisted the execution petition and filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). The objections were dismissed by the learned trial court vide impugned orders dated 7th April, 2000. Aggrieved, the judgment debtors have filed the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code.

(2.) In order to appreciate controversy the relevant facts, for the disposal of this petition, may be noticed thus: Petitioners No. 1 to 4 (before this Court) are the legal representatives of judgment debtor Bhagat Ram, who was Defendant No. 1 in the Civil Suit. Petitioner No. 5 Babu Ram judgment debtor was Defendant No. 2. Learned Trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 5th May, 1997, passed an ex-parte decree against the Defendants Bhagat Ram and Babu Ram in the following terms:

(3.) The decree was not satisfied which resulted into the filing of the execution petition. The judgment debtors resists the execution petition by filing objections under Section 47 of the Code. Objection of the judgment debtors is that decree sought to be executed is illegal, wrong and without jurisdiction. The objections may be reproduced for convenience: