This appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC is directed against the order dated 29/3/2005 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.2, Jodhpur, (‘the Executing Court’) whereby, the applications filed by the appellant under Section 152 CPC and Order XXI Rule 58 CPC were rejected.

2. A money decree dated 16/10/1989 was passed by the court of Addl. District Judge No.6, Jaipur City in Civil Original Suit No.94/89 (129/76) filed by Smt. Nirmala Mehta against Inder Singh Jain and others, wherein, on account of death of Inder Singh Jain during the pendency of the suit, his legal representatives 1/1 to 1/9 were brought on record.

3. The execution proceedings pertaining to the decree dated 16/10/1989 were transferred by the court at Jaipur vide its Transfer Certificate dated 5/10/1991 to the court of District Judge, Jodhpur, which was transferred to the court of Addl. District Judge No.2, Jodhpur and was registered as Execution Case No.19/98. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, a property situated at Sojati Gate, Jodhpur was ordered to be auctioned and after three attempts made in this regard, the auction proceedings were concluded before the Executing Court on 13/12/2004, wherein, the property in question was auctioned for a sum of Rs.23,11,000/- in favour of Smt. Saroj and Sudesh Ruthia.

4. After the full auction amount was deposited on 21/12/2004, when the matter came up before the Executing Court on 14/2/2005, the following order was passed:

^^14-02-2005

odhy fMØhnkj mifLFkrA

fuykeh ds 60 fnu iwjs gks pqds gSA dksbZ mtjnkjh is’k ugha gqbZA vr% fuyke Jhefr ljkst o lqns’k :fB;k :0 23]11000@& esa iq[rk fd;k tkrk gSA odhy fMØhnkj fu;ekuqlkj iksUMst Qhl ,oa Øsrk LVkEi fof/k vuqlkj is’k djsA btjk; dh jkf’k fooj.k is’k gksus ij fMØhnkj dks ,oa 'ks"k jkf’k en;wu Jhefr pUnzdyk tSu dks ykSVkbZ tkosA i=koyh fnukad 11-03-2005 dks is’k gksA**

5. On 4/3/2005, an application under Section 152 CPC was filed by the appellant-judgment debtor Shanti Lal Jain with the averments that by order dated 14/2/2005 the surplus amount of the decree has been ordered to be returned to Smt. Chandrakala Jain alone, which is a clerical mistake and certain averments were also made questioning the right of Smt. Chandrakala Jain to receive the said amount. On the same day, another application under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC was filed with similar averments seeking directions that the surplus amount be disbursed in accordance with law and in the alternative till such time the suit pertaining to the Will was not finally decided, the amount be not paid to any party.

6. Both the applications were resisted by respondent no.2 Smt. Chandrakala Jain.

7. The trial court by its order dated 29/3/2005, after hearing the parties, inter alia passed the following order dismissing both the applications:

^^4- i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd en;qu la[;k 1@1 pUnzdyka tSu dh tks fooknxzLr nqdku uhyke gqbZ gS og bUnzflag tSu ls olh;r esa pUnzdyka tSu dks feyh FkhA en;qu la[;k 1@2 tks vkifRrdrkZ 'kkafrey en;qu la[;k 1@3 dk HkkbZ gS og pUnzdyka tSu dks viuh lksrsyh ek¡ Lohdkj djrk gS lkFk gh pUnzdyka tSu dks LoxhZ; bUnzflag us thfor jgrs tks lEifr olh;r dj nh rFkk ftl lEifr ckcr~ 1988 ls LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk okn 'ks"k en;quku ds fo:) pUnzdyka tSu us yM+s gS rFkk ftl lEifr ckcr fdjk;snkj ds fo:) csn[kyh dk nkok lu~ 1995 esa pUnzdyka tSu us izLrqr fd;k gS ml lEifr esa viuk gd o fgLlk crkdj en;qu la[;k 1@3 vuxZy o vuko’;d vkosnu bl U;k;ky; ds le{k yk;k gSA bl btjk; dh dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku en;qu la[;k 1@1 us bUnz flag tSu ds 'ks"k okfjlku vU;Fkk nhxj en;quku dh lEifr;ka bUnz flag ls izkIr lqnk gksuk crk;k o muls olwyh djus dk vkxzg fd;k ijUrq 'ks"k en;quku viuh lEifr;ka bZ/kj&m/kj gLrkukUrfjr dj vius firk ds mRrjnkf;Ro ls cprs jgs o olh;r ls izkIr en;qu la[;k 1@1 dh btjk; esa tks nqdku uhyke gqbZ gS ml ij izFke n`"V;k fdlh Hkh izdkj ds vf/kdkj 'ks"k en;quku ds fdlh Hkh vk/kkj ij izekf.kr ;k iq"V ugha gksrs] 'ks"k en;quku ds o en;qu la[;k 1@3 ds bl btjk; dh dk;Zokgh ls pUnzdyka tSu dh