RAJA SHYAM SUNDER SINGH Vs. DHIRENDRA NATH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad given on 16 September 1936 in an objection taken by the judgment-debtor to an execution by the respondents. It would appear that the respondents who were the decree, holders, obtained their decree for something in excess of a lakh of rupees on 29 February 1932. There were applications for execution and eventually at the instance of the judgment-debtor a receiver of his estate was appointed. The question of his discharge appears to have come before the Court, and in appeal before this Court on 11 January 1935 a consent order was made.

(2.) The consent order provided for the appointment of two receivers of the estate of the judgment-debtor excluding seven villages; the order was stated in these terms: The order of the Subordinate Judge, dated 5 December 1933 is hereby set aside and Mr. Surendra Narain Roy and Mr. Praboth Kumar Chandra, Pleaders, are appointed joint receivers of the estate of the judgment- debtor excepting the properties mentioned in order No. 66, dated 22 January, 1934.

(3.) The properties mentioned in order No. 66 are the seven villages to which I have referred. The execution taken out by the decree-holders is against those seven villages. The learned Judge in the Court below, as I have already indicated, has dismissed the objection of the judgment-debtor. It is now contended by Mr. Janak Kishore that the decree holders are estopped by their consent to the order of 11 January 1935, part of which I have read. I must say I am unable to follow that argument unless it could be said that the consent order not only excluded the seven villages from that part of the estate which was to be taken possession of by the receivers, but also excluded them from any future execution. Mr. Janak Kishore frankly admits that the consent order of 11 January 1935 cannot be construed in that way that is to say cannot be construed in a manner which would exclude the seven villages from execution. When once that admission is made, it seems to me that the matter is quite clear. There is no reason why the decree- holder should not take out any or all the forms of execution which the Code of Civil Procedure entitles him to pursue against various items of the judgment-debtor's property.