CHANDU LAL Vs. AJAY KUMAR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties.

(2.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 11.8.2005 passed by Execution Munsif, 1st, Patna in Execution Case No. 23 of 2000 allowing the petition filed by opposite party no. 2 Manoj Kumar Gupta for being impleaded as codecree holder in execution proceeding"

(3.) PETITIONER 'scase is that since the opposite party no. 2 was not party in eviction suit and the decree was not passed in his favour he could not have been impleaded as decree holder for executing the decree. He has no locus standi to make a prayer for executing the decree. Further it has been contended that from the recital in the sale deed executed in favour of opposite party no. 2 it is apparent that he is already in possession of premises in the circumstances there is no reason for him to join in the execution proceeding as co -decree holder for delivery of possession through process of the court. Other ground taken for assailing the impugned order is that the decree holder has sold only his right, title in the suit premises and has not assigned the decree as such the purchaser has no locus to make a prayer for execution of decree. The impugned order has been passed without considering the provisions under Order XXI Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code and the opposite party no. 2 has been allowed to be impleaded codecree holder, it is erroneous without jurisdiction and fit to be set aside.