MANTURNI Vs. MUNNILAL BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, claiming to be the widow of one Hardeyal Mahto, deceased, filed, an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a case of execution of a decree obtained by respondents 1 to 4 against the other respondents. Hardeyal died during the pendency of the suit and all the persons, who were the heirs of Hardeyal according to the cast: of respondents 1 to 4, were substituted in the suit. In execution, however, the appellant filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging, that she was the widow of Hardeyal, and she not having been substituted in the suit, the decree was not binding on her and could not be executed. Apart from the other questions, the appellate Court has taken the view that such an application at the instance of the appellant under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable. In my judgment, the view taken is correct. She is neither a judgment-debtor nor a representative of the judgment-debtors within the meaning of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and, therefore, she has no right to file the application under Section 47. It is further stated in the judgment of the appellate Court that she has already filed a suit for a declaration that the decree is not binding on her. Be that as it may, it is obvious that I cannot accept the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant that she is a representative of the judgment-debtors. Hardeyal being dead during the pendency of the suit, was neither a judgment-debtor, nor was he a party within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That being so, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs payable to respondents 1 to 4 only.