BABU LAL BATHWAL Vs. GANPAT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by defendant No. 3 judgment-debtor from the order of Mr. C. M. Prasad, Additional Subordinate Judge Purnea, disallowing the objection of the appellant to the excitability of the decree under execution.

(2.) The sole question for determination in the present appeal is whether the executing Court, when executing the last decree of the appellate Court, has got the power to refer to and supply the specifications of the decree of the lower Court, when the last decree under execution does not contain those specifications?

(3.) Mr. J. C. Sinha, in support of the appeal, contended that as admittedly the decree under execution is the High Court decree which is the last decree and which does not mention the amount of costs awarded by the first Court, the decree-holders-respondents were not entitled to recover the amount of costs awarded by the first Court without getting the decree of the High Court amended and that direction entered in the High Court decree. In support of his contention, he belied on Order 41, Rule 35 (3) and Form No. 9 in Appendix G to the Code of Civil Procedure. He also placed strong reliance on a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Shohrat Singh v. Bridgman, ILR 4 All 376 (A).