ORDER :- This revision petition is filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Tanuku in E.P. No. 30 of 1987 in O.S. No. 19 of 1974.

2. The 1st respondent society was given some land of the first petitioner for establishment of a college on a condition that the society shall deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- with Temple as a corpus and the interest accrued thereon shall be treated as the rent for leasing out the property to the 1st respondent society for a period of 30 years. There was a delay of 1½ years in deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- after delivery of the property to the 1st respondent.

3. The revision petitioner filed a suit against the respondents for realisation of the amount due towards interest on the amount from the date of possession till the date of deposit, being the loss suffered by the first petitioner due to delayed payment of the said amount. The lower Court decreed the suit for Rs. 39,703.27 with interest and costs. The petitioner filed E.P. No. 62 of 1981 for realisation of the amount by way of attachment and sale of the property of the 2nd judgment debtor. That reached the stage of sale and when the property was actually brought for sale there were no bidders, therefore, the lower Court dismissed the said execution petition for want of bidders. Subsequently the revision petitioner filed E.P. No. 30 of 1987 once again bringing the properties of the 2nd judgment debtor for sale. The 2nd judgment debtor questioned the maintainability of the execution petition contending that there is a statutory bar under Section 8 of the Societies Registration Act 1860 (for short "the Act"). Though similar objection raised in the earlier execution petition was rejected, the lower Court found some force in the objection raised by the 2nd judgment debtor and accordingly dismissed the execution petition on the ground that it is not maintainable due to the bar provided under Section 8 of the Act. The revision petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, preferred this revision challenging its validity and legality.

4. The point for consideration is whether the execution petition is maintainable against the respondents in view of the bar provided under Section 8 of the Act?

5. The revision petitioner filed the suit against the society and its office bearers by mentioning their names. The suit was decreed against all of them. The respondents contend that since there was no decree against the Respondents 8 to 11 in their individual capacity, the decree cannot be enforced against them and the execution petition cannot be maintained.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that since the Respondents 8 to 11 are sued by name, they are liable to pay the decretal amount jointly and severally. He further submitted that though the designations of the Respondents 8 to 11 are shown in the cause title of the plaint, it is only for the purpose of idenitification of the individuals and not to indicate that they were sued in their official capacity. The lower Court by taking into consideration of the respective pleas and after referring to case law on the subject, came to a conclusion that the personal property of the 2nd judgment debtor cannot be brought to sale and the execution petition against the 2nd judgment debtor for bringing his personal properties for sale for realisation of the decretal amount, is not maintainable.

7. Section 8 of the Act reads as under :

"If a judgment shall be recovered against the person or officer named on behalf of the society, such judgment shall not be put in force against the property, movable or immovable or against the body of such person or officer, but against the property of the society.

The application for execution shall set forth the judgment, the fact of the party against whom it shall have been recovered having sued or having been sued, as the case may be, on behalf of the society only, and shall require to have the judgment enforced against the property of the society."

8.