BATUK NATH Vs. JUGAL KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision raised a question of law on which there does not appear to be any direct authority. The matter is not, it further appears, covered by any direct rule of procedure contained in the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The facts are these: One Pancha was indebted to one Jugal Kishore. Panoha having died Jugal Kishore brought a suit to recover his money against Pancha's widow Mt. Kota. When decree was passed, the widow was pregnant and she gave birth to a child, the petitioner before me, a few months later. The decree-holder sought to execute his decree against the widow and obtained an attachment of certain properties. Pancha's brother Sancha for himself and as the guardian of his nephew, the petitioner Batuk Nath, preferred an objection apparently under Order 21, Rule 68, of the Civil Procedure Code and it succeeded. The decree-holder brought a suit under Rule 63, Order 21, Civil P, C., and this suit was dismissed for default. His appeal was still pending before the District Judge when that learned officer disposed of the present matter.

(3.) Having been unsuccessful in executing his decree against Mt.Kota, the decree-holder's representative (decree-holder having since died) sought to execute the decree by bringing Batuk Nath on the record as the legal representative of his deceased father. Batuk Nath came forward with a number of objections, only one of which has been so far decided, viz., whether he could be properly brought on the record as the legal representative of the deceased Pancha. The Courts below have agreed that Batuk Nath, if the execution is continued against him, would be entitled to prefer any objection that he may have to the execution of the decree.