BHANWAR DEVI Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition No. 215/2000 has been filed by the Judgment Debtor challenging the order dtd. 10/12/1999 by which the objections under Sec. 47, C.P.C. filed by the petitioner have been dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case in short are that a suit No. 114/1996 for injunction was filed by one Suresh Chandra against the defendants namely Smt. Bhanwar Devi petitioner, Raj Kumar who is non-petitioner No. 1, Gopal Lal Non-petitioner No. 2, and one Kalurarn non-petitioner No. 4, the said suit was decreed on 22/1/1993, the decree reads as under:

(3.) After passing of the decree it is stated that the defendants did not comply with the decree in view of the aforesaid the plaintiff-decree-holder Suresh Chandra filed an execution application No. 13/199 on 2/1/1996 against the defendant Smt. Bhanwar Devi petitioner, Raj Kumar ,on-petitioner No. 1, and Gopal Lal non-petitioner No. 2, as well as Kaluram the tenant who was doing tailoring in the Tor and who during the pendency of the execution application No. 13/1996 filed by Suresh Chandra is said to have vacated. After filling the execution application Suresh Chandra sold the property belonging to him to Raj Kumar the non-petitioner No. 1, who was out of the defendant Judgment-Debtor vide registered sale-deed dtd. 12/2/1996. Raj Kumar Non-petitioner No. 1, who is the Judgment Debtor after having purchased the property belonging to Suresh Chandra the plaintiff-decree-holder moved an application under Order 21 Rule 16, C.P.C. for transposition as the decree-holder in place of Suresh Chandra on 2/8/1996. The executing Court vide its order dtd. 10/12/1997 dismissed the application under Order 21 Rule 16 C.P.C. filed by Raj Kumar by holding that Order 21 Rule 16 C.P.C. only authorised the transfer to file an execution application but not to get himself transposed as the decree-holder in the execution application filed by the decree, holder and as such vide order dtd. 10/12/1997 the application filed by Raj Kumar was dismissed.