JUDGMENT - D.D. SINHA, J.:---Heard Shri Palshikar, learned Counsel for the applicants, and Shri Moharil, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The civil revision application is directed against the order dated 9-12-1994 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gondia in Regular Civil Suit No. 42/1989 filed by the respondents, whereby application moved by the present applicants under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected.

3. Shri Palshikar, learned Counsel for the applicants, states that the present applicants are the legal representatives of deceased Gulabbai. Deceased Gulabbai filed Special Civil Suit No. 12/1971 for partition and separate possession of the house property bearing Plot No. 18/5, Sheet No. 28, Goshala Ward, Gondia against Ramprasad, Tarabai and Shankarlal. It is contended that the said suit was decreed on 21-2-1979 and Gulabbai was held to be entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property. The learned Counsel further states that being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, Gulabbai preferred First Appeal No. 70/1980 in this Court and same was partly allowed on 1-12-1989. It was held by this Court that Gulabbai was entitled to ½ share in the suit property and the judgment and decree dated 21-2-1979 passed by the trial Court was modified accordingly.

4. It is contended by learned Counsel Shri Palshikar that during the pendency of Special Civil Suit No. 12/1971, i.e. on 25-12-1978, the present respondents purchased the suit property, i.e. house referred to hereinabove from one Brijmohan and Hiralal, who were brought on record as legal representatives of original defendant No. 1 Ramprasad. It is further contended that the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 42/1989 for declaration that the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 12/1971 is null and void and not binding on them. It is submitted that the present applicants are the defendants in the said suit and they filed an application in the said suit under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for rejection of plaint since separate suit is not maintainable. The said application is rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 9-12-1994. Hence, the applicants have filed the present revision.

5. Learned Counsel Shri Palshikar assails the impugned order passed by the trial Court on the ground that in view of provisions of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the respondents are entitled to raise objection, if any, in the execution proceedings of the judgment and decree in Special Civil Suit No. 12/1971 and executing Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same and decide the issue. It is contended that sub-section (1) of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. It is contended by the learned Counsel that since respondents have purchased the suit property from one of the original defendants during the pendency of the earlier suit, they fall within the category of the representatives of the defendants and, therefore, the only remedy available to them is to raise an objection in execution proceedings and the executing Court needs to adjudicate upon the same and give decision. They are not entitled to file a separate suit, which is barred under section 47(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence, trial Court ought to have allowed the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the applicants.

6. Shri Moharil, learned Counsel for the respondents, supported the impugned order and states that the suit filed by the respondents bearing No. 42/1989 is maintainable and the trial Court was justified in rejecting the appl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document