JUHARMAL Vs. KAPOOR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The objector-appellant has filed this appeal under Order XXI, Rule 58 (4), C. P. C. against the judgment dated Aug. 10, 1982 of the Additional District Judge, Sirohi, by which his ob-jection under Order XXI, Rule 58. C. P. C. was dismissed.

(2.) A few facts may be noticed first. Kapoor Chand was the original decree- holder, who is now represented by his legal representative Smt. Saku Bai, widow of Gandhi Dhanraj and is respondent No. 1. The original decree-holder Kapoor Chand obtained a decree against Ummedmal and Keshri Mal. In execution of the decree, dated Oct. 15, 1973, the house in question was attached on Oct. 21, 1973. The objector-appellant filed objection on Mar. 14, 1975 under Order XXI, Rule 58. C. P. C. as it existed then. The objection was rejected on July 1, 1978 on the ground of unnecessary delay. An appeal was filed in this Court, which was registered as Section B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 89 of 1978. This Court, in view of the concession made by the learned counsel appearing for the decree-holder, allowed the appeal and the order rejecting the objection under Order XXI, Rule 58 was set aside, and the case was sent back to the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi with a direction to decide the claim afresh on the basis of the evidence, which is already on record keeping in view the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 58, C. P. C. which then existed at the time of preferring the objection and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the objector, decree-holder and the judgment-debtors. The learned Additional District Judge by his order dated Aug. 10, 1982 dismissed the objection on merits. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the objector has filed this appeal under Order XXI, Rule 58 (4), C. P. C. as aforesaid.

(3.) Show cause notice was issued to the respondents. In pursuance of that, Mr. L. Rule Mehta, has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 and nobody has appeared on behalf of the judgment-debtors-respondents.