Full Judgment
C.R.No.556/2004 18.02.2014 Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Though this Civil Revision is admitted for hearing and an interim stay is granted, respondents are served, but nobody is appearing on behalf of respondents.
Despite the service of this revision, nobody is appearing on behalf of respondents to oppose the claim made in the revision.
This revision is directed against the order dated 20.07.2004 passed in Execution Case No.1/1999, pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur.
The applicant was not the defendant in the suit filed by respondent No.1.
A monetary claim was made against the respondent No.2 by respondent No.1-plaintiff, which suit was decreed.
In the execution proceeding an application was made for impleadment of the applicant herein as a judgment debtor and that application was allowed without issuing any notice of the application to the applicant.
An application under Section 151 of CPC was filed by the applicant for deleting his name from array of the judgment debtor, but the said application was not pressed and, therefore, the same was dismissed on 26.09.2001.
Subsequently, another application was filed by the applicant for deleting his name from the array of the judgment debtor contending that he has nothing to do with the suit property nor he has any share or interest in the property of respondent No.2, who was in fact the judgment debtor.
Such application has been rejected by the order impugned, therefore, this revision is required to be filed.
It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the application of the applicant was not to be rejected merely because the earlier application was not pressed and was withdrawn or was dismissed.
The fact remain that the applicant has no interest in the suit property or properties of the respondent No.2 from whom the recovery is to be made.
Thus, wrongly, the application of the applicant was rejected.
True it is that a decree is passed against the original judgment debtor.
In the suit the applicant was not impleaded as a defendant.
Nothing has been indicated as to how the applicant would be liable to satisfy the decree granted against the respondent No.2.
The rule of execution is that the decree is to be executed against the original judgment debtor.
The applicant has not been shown even as a successor of the original judgment debtor and, therefore, his impleadment as a judgment debtor only in the proceedings is not permissible.
It is to be seen that the applicant was not given any opportunity of hearing before his impleadment as judgment debtor in the execution proceeding by issuing notice of the application made for the said purpose by respondent No.1.
Consequently, the order dated 20.07.2004 cannot be sustained.
The same is set aside.
The application of the applicant for his exclusion as judgment debtor from the execution proceeding is allowed.
Now the Executing Court will execute the judgment and decree only against the original judgment debtor.
The revision is allowed to the extent indicated herein above.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge b