SALAMAT ULLAH Vs. MTMAHARAJ KUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an execution of decree appeal. It is directed against the appellate order of the learned District Judge Bara Banki upholding the order of the execution Court and allowing the judgment-debtor Mt. Mahraj Kuar's objections under Section 47, Civil P.C., against the execution of the decree of Shaikh Salamat Ullah appellant.

(2.) The only question involved in this appeal is whether the decree of which the appellant sought execution was or was not a nullity by reason of the fact that it was obtained against the judgment-debtors during the pendency of the Encumbered Estates Act proceedings initiated by some of them. It is admitted on behalf of the appellant that the suit, which resulted in the decree under execution, was filed subsequent to the initiation of proceedings under the En-cumbered Estates Act by three judgment-debtors, namely, Chaudhri Maqbulul Rahman, Chaudhri Musbtaqul Rahman and Beni Madho Singh, The decree-holder further admitted that in the proceedings consequent upon the application of the aforesaid persons he preferred certain objections under Section 11, Encumbered Estates Act, and from this it would seem to follow that an order under Section 6, Encumbered Estates Act was passed in due course. The Courts below acting upon this inference have held that the decree under execution was a nullity, and it could not be enforced against the judgment-debtor respondent Mt, Mahraj Kuar.

(3.) Two points have been urged on behalf of the appellants: (1) that Section 7 does not operate to take away the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain a suit in respect of a private debt incurred before the initiation of proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act, and (2) that even if it does, the failure of the respondent to draw the attention of the Court to the pendency of the proceedings under the Act disentitles her now from raising objections in execution proceedings.