HIMACHAL GRAMIN BANK Vs. SUMAN THAKUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition stands instituted by the decree holder/petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as 'decree holder') whereby it assails the rendition of 11.7.2011 of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sarkaghat, whereunder the objections preferred before him by the judgment debtors/respondents herein to the execution petition constituted before him at the instance of the decree holder stood allowed. Indisputably the decree holder- bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.11,065/- against the judgment debtors/respondents herein. The principal Lonee is respondent No.1 herein. The suit came to be decreed by the learned trial court.

(2.) In an appeal preferred therefrom by the aggrieved before the learned first Appellate Court, the latter Court affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The concurrently recorded findings of fact against the judgment debtor/respondent No.1 herein acquire conclusivity besides finality spurable from the factum of the judgment debtor/respondent No.1 herein not assailing the judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court rendered in affirmation to the judgment and decree rendered by the learned trial Court. However, when the decree holder instituted a petition for execution of the decree, an objection anchored upon Ext.OW-1/A stood constituted by the Judgment debtor before the learned Executing Court. Ext.OW-1/A comprises a rendition of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sarkaghat manifesting the factum of the judgment debtor/respondent No.1 herein in another suit instituted by the decree holder against her, standing concluded by the Court concerned to stand disabled given her minority at the apposite stage to execute any loan document with the plaintiff therein, whereupon it concluded of the apposite loan document begetting a stain of nullity sequelling it hence to dismiss the suit of the revisionist/decree holder as constituted against the judgment debtor/respondent No.1 herein.

(3.) Be that as it may, the rendition comprised in Ext.OW- 1/A was of 15.5.1999, whereat an appeal of respondent No.1 against the decree of the learned trial Court was pending before the learned first Appellate Court. Since during the pendency of the appeal before the learned first Appellate Court against the rendition of the learned trial Court, the rendition comprised in Ext.OW-1/A emanated contemporaneously thereat, contrarily when it was open to her to move an appropriate application before the learned trial Court for seeking its leave to adduce by way of additional evidence Ext.OW-1/A for constraining the learned Appellate Court to on its anvil reverse the findings of the learned trial Court, hers omitting to do so, rather hers proceeding to by sheer legal contrivance anchored upon a belated misplaced reliance by her upon Ext.OW-1/A to negate the effect of the conclusive concurrently recorded judgments and decrees of two Courts, is manifestive of hers standing estopped to assail the decree under execution before the learned Executing Court by relying upon Ext.OW-1/A. Also hers omitting to at the apposite stage rely upon Ext.OW-1/A succors an inference of hers withholding it from the First Appellate Court for precluding it to view it or sight it wherefrom an inference stands aroused of hers suppressing vitiations, if any, occurring in the evidence relied upon by her for constraining the Court concerned to render Ext.OW-1/A.