Point of law: Article 227 deals with power of superintendence by the High Court over all Subordinate Court and Tribunals. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court by Article 227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only, but includes the power of judicial review also even where no appeal or revision lies to the High Court under the ordinary law, rather power under this Article is wider than that of Article 226 in the sense that it is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction and such power can also be exercised suo-motu. The circumstances where the Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are only elliptic.

JUDGMENT :

M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.

ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order in E.A. No. 585 of 2011 in E.P. No. 43 of 2010 in O.S. No. 77 of 2004 dated 20.09.2012 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, whereby, a petition filed under Order XXI Rule 50(2) C.P.C. to grant leave to the petitioner to file execution petition against the partners of the first judgment debtor was allowed.

2. The parties before the Court will hereinafter be referred, as arrayed before the executing Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The petitioner/decree holder obtained a decree against the first judgment debtor i.e. partnership firm-Siddi Vinayaka Raw boiled rice mill for recovery of amount. In order to recover the decree amount, it is necessary for the petitioner to proceed against the partners of the first judgment debtor, who are shown as Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. In such circumstances, it is necessary to obtain leave by the petitioner to file execution petition against the partners of the first respondent/judgment debtor and sought leave to proceed against the partners of the firm.

4. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, inter-alia, contending that Item No. 1 of the E.P. schedule property is the absolute property of judgment debtors and Item No. 2 is the absolute property of the fifth judgment debtor. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are not parties to the suit O.S. No. 77 of 2004. The decree passed in O.S. No. 77 of 2004 never intended to execute the said decree against the property of Judgment Debtor Nos. 3 to 5, which absolutely belongs to them. It is further contended that, the property was never used for business purpose relating to the first Judgment Debtor firm. It is contended that, the decree holder has got no right whatsoever to execute the decree against the properties belonging to Judgment Debtor Nos. 3 to 5, except proceeding against the assets belonging to Judgment Debtor Nos. 1 and 2, the decree holder has no right to proceed against the assets of the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and prayed for dismissal of E.A. No. 585 of 2011.

5. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner/decree holder examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exs.A-1 and A-2, while the fifth respondent/Judgment Debtor himself examined as RW-1, but no documents were marked.

6. The Executing Court upon hearing argument of both the counsel, granted leave to the petitioner to proceed against the petitioners herein/respondent Nos. 3 to 5, who are the partners of the firm. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners herein being the partners of the firm, preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India instead of Section 115 C.P.C. reiterating the grounds urged in the counter affidavit filed by the Judgment Debtor Nos. 1 and 2 in E.A. No. 585 of 2011. However, the petitioners herein/Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 did not file counter affidavit in E.A. No. 585 of 2011.

7. The first and foremost ground urged by the petitioners herein/Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 before Executing Court is that, the first respondent herein/decree holder is not entitled to proceed against the petitioners herein/Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 i.e. partners of the firm proposed to proceed, who are not parties to the suit O.S. No. 77 of 2004 invoking Order XXI Rule 50(2) C.P.C. It is further contended that the Court below failed to appreciate the contention in proper perspective, though an appeal A.S. No. 320 of 2008 is pending against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 77 of 2004 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, but, granted leave mechanically and requested to set-aside the same.

8. During hearing, Sri. Lasetty Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioners/Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, mainly contended that, when the suit is filed against the firm and it's Managing Partner, the decree holder is disentitled to proceed against the partners of the firm a