PARAS RAM Vs. HEM RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against an appellate judgment and decree whereby the learned District Judge, Mandi and Chamba districts, dismissed an appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order of the Senior Subordinate Judge Mandi dismissing an objection filed by the petitioner.

(2.) A decree for recovery of Rs. 904/6/- was passed against the petitioner on 26-21952. Execution was taken out by the decree-holder and the last execution application was made on 20-4-1960. During the course of execution proceedings the petitioner filed an objection petition purporting to be under Sections 7 and 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Debt Reduction Act 1953, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Himachal Pradesh Act and under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code. The main ground of objection was that the decree may be re-opened, accounts taken and the decree amended in accordance with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Act. The objection petition was dismissed in default of appearance of the petitioner. It was, however, restored to its original number on 3-6-1960. Issues were framed and 20-8-1960 was fixed for the production of evidence. The petitioner did not lead any evidence either on that date or on the dates fixed thereafter and on 8-12-60 the counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he had no instructions for appearance. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge dismissed the objection petition in default of appearance of the petitioner. On 22-12-1960, the petitioner filed another objection petition purporting to be under Sections 7 and 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Act and Section 47, Civil P. C., raising practically the same points which were raised in the previous objection petition. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge dismissed the objection petition. The petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not competent. This objection found favour with the learned Court. It held that a prayer for amending the decree did not fall within the purview of Section 47, Civil P. C., and as such no appeal lay against such an order.

(3.) The correctness of the aforesaid view has been challenged by the present application in revision.