JUDGMENT - SINHA D.D., J.:---This civil revision application was listed before this Court for final hearing on 16-6-1998. The Counsel for the applicants made his submissions. However, since the Counsel for the non-applicants was absent, the matter was kept part heard and adjourned to 22-6-1998 as part heard. The matter could not be heard on 22nd, 23rd and 24th June, 1998 since it did not reach for hearing on those days and it remained part heard on all those days. When the matter is called out today for hearing, the Counsel for the non-applicants is absent. Hence, the matter is proceeded further on merits.

2. Shri Khamborker, the learned Counsel for the applicants, submitted that the present non-applicants filed Regular Civil Suit No. 32/70 for setting aside partition and re-determination of share of Narayan Bhagwant Pande. It is further submitted that the trial Court decreed the Suit No. 4-5-1972. The learned Counsel submitted that original defendant Damodar Bhagwant Pande being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, preferred first appeal. However, same came to be dismissed. Thereafter, second appeal bearing No. 215/75 was preferred, which also came to be dismissed by this Court on 18-3-1991. The learned Counsel contended that during the course of above referred proceedings, original plaintiff, i.e., non-applicants No. 1 and original defendant, i.e., applicant No. 1 died and present applicants and non-applicants are the legal representatives of original judgment debtor and decree holder.

3. The learned Counsel further submitted that the aforesaid decree was sought to be executed by filing Regular Darkhast No. 227/92. An objection was raised by the present applicants in the execution proceedings on the ground that the same are barred by limitation. The learned Counsel contended that 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati vide order dated 18-6-1996 upheld the objection raised by the applicants on the ground of limitation and execution proceedings came to be dismissed. The learned Counsel further submitted that the said order dated 18-6-1996 passed in Regular Darkhast No. 227/92 was not challenged by the non-applicants nor the same has been set aside by any competent Civil Court till this date. The learned Counsel submitted that therefore, the said order dated 18-6-1996 has attained finality.

4. The learned Counsel further submitted that the non-applicants again filed execution proceedings by way of Regular Darkhast No. 329/96 for the purposes of getting the decree dated 4-5-1972 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 32/70 executed. It is the contention of the applicants that they filed objections in the said execution proceedings on two grounds:

(1) that execution proceedings instituted by way of Regular Darkhast No. 329/96 are barred by limitation; and

(2) that earlier order dated 18-6-1996 passed by 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati below Exh. 55 in Regular Darkahst No. 227/92 operates as res judicata.

The 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and objections raised by the applicants, vide order dated 12-9-1997 rejected the objections raised by the applicants. Hence, the present civil revision application came to be filed by the applicants in this Court challenging legality and validity of the order dated 12-9-1997 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati.

5. The learned Counsel for the applicants restricted scope of his argument only to the extent of section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel contended that the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division ought not to have entertained Regular Darkhast No. 329/96 since earlier order dated 18-6-1996 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division below Exh. 55 had attained finality and not yet been rejected and it operates as res judicata. The learned Counsel contended that the earlier proceedings initiated by the non-applicants by filin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document