( 1 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the iv Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 12th August, 1988 in e. P. No. 12/88 in O. S. No. 36/86. The third respondent in the E P. and the third defendant in the suit is the petitioner before us.

( 2 ) O. S. No. 36/86 is filed by Vasu Cotton and Ginning Mills, Idupulapadu,represented by its Managing Partner, Gorantla Brahamanandam for recovery of Rs. 21,84,336-93 Paise. The first defendant in the suit is sri Venkatachalapathi Mills Ltd , Tirupathi represented by its Chairman, chanumolu Vcnkat Rao. The second defendant is the Managing Director of the Company and the third defendant is one of the directors of the company. The third defendant became the director as a nominee of the State financial Corporation, at the request of Andhra Bank which had advanced loans to the first defendant-Company. The claim of the plaintiff is towards the value of the cotton supplied to the first defendant, which is a company registered under the Companies Act. Negativing the several objections raised by the defendants, the suit was decreed. Then the plaintiff mills filed E. P. No. 12/88 for arrest and detention, in Civil Prison, of defendant No. 3 who is one of the directors of the Company. The petition was resisted contending, inter alia, that the decree in O. S. No. 36/86 is against the Company and there is no personal decree against the Directors and in fact ro such decree can be passed fastening individual liability, that the company registered under the Companies Act is a legal entity, and it is a Corporate body, having an independent existence of Us own. It was urged that the decree can be enforced only against the assests of the Company and not against the Directors unlike in the case of Partnership concerns.

( 3 ) THE trial Judge held that in a suit for recovery of monies againsta company no pt rsonal decree can be passed against the Directors, but however rejected the submission made on behalf of the Judgment Debtor on the ground that the validity of the decree cannot be gone into in Execution proceedings as the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, and allowed the petition for arrest. Challenging the validity of this order the third defendant filed this revision.

( 4 ) WHEN the matter came up before a learned single judge of thiscourt, it was contended that a joint and several decree cannot be enforced against its Director and even if a personal decree is passed it is a nullity. The learned Judge thought that the case involves an important question of law and referred the same to a Division Bench, and that is how the matter is before us now.

( 5 ) THE twin questions that arise for consideration are : (1) Whether the decree in O. S. No. 36/86 out of which the execution Proceedings arise, is a joint and several decree against the company as well as its directors or whether it is a decree against the 1st defendant company alone, and (2) Whether a decree passed against the directors is a nullity and the same is not enforceable personally against the directors.

( 6 ) M/s Vasu Cotton and Ginning Mills represented by its Managingpartner, Gorantla Brahmanandam, is the plaintiff. The first defendant is described as Sri Venkatachalapathi Mills Ltd. , Tirupathi represented by its Chairman Chanumolu Venkata Rao. The second defendant is described as Madala Venkateswara Rao, the Proprietor of Lakshmi Globs Tobacco company, also representing the first defendant-Company as its Managing partner. The third defendant is described as "chanumolu Anil Kumar resident of Tirupathi and he represents the first defendant as whole time director. " The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,84,336-93 Ps. towards the value of the cotton supplied to the conpiny and the suit is decreed as follows :1. The defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of rs. 21,84,336-93 Ps. together with interest, and2. That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of rs. 56,529-25 P