Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is not applicable to execution proceedings and the court has no power to implead parties in execution proceedings. The judgment debtors can challenge the validity of an ex parte decree by getting it set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., by way of appeal or revision, or by filing a suit against the decree-holder, but cannot do so in execution proceedings.

D. P. Sood, J —The judgment debtors in the main execution proceedings, have filed this application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting that Sapurdar, that is Mehar Chand Trust, Saproon, through its President and the National Insurance Company, Sector-17, Chandigarh, through its Manager, be also impleaded for imparting proper justice to them. Some of the grounds, amongst others, are that certain goods worth the value of the loan advance, that is Rs. 75,000, were pledged with the decree-holder and kept in the hired premises belonging to Mahar Chand Trust, Saproon at the monthly rental of rupees 80 per month payable by the judgment-debtors ; that the decree-holder while obtaining the decree did not bring this fact to notice of the Court and sought ex parte decree in question by playing fraud upon the Court; that the said decree has now been put by the decree-holder in execution and instead of getting their dues adjusted from the value of the said pledged goods, they have proceeded against the other property belonging to them. Under the circumstances, the application, referred to above, has been moved.

2. The application has been hotly contested the decree-holder on the ground that it is neither maintainable nor on the basis of acts and conducts of the judgment-debtors it can be gone into by this Court at this stage as none of the aforesaid persons are necessary parties. Rather, according to them, the said application being merely to delay the execution, proceedings, is mis-conceived.

3. In rejoinder, the contentions raised by the decree-holder have again been refuted and that of the application are reiterated. At this stage, it would be pertinent to detail that the allegation with respect to the pledging of the goods with the decree-holder-Bank in the. aforesaid premises has not been denied by the decree-holder. Rather, it has been admitted that the applicants-judgment-debtors have moved an application before the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Solan for redemption of the pledged goods/raw- material to the applicants or its adjustment in value towards the outstanding dues of the decree-holder.

4. The learned Counsel for the parties have made a statement at the Bar that in view of the admissions of the allegations, neither any issue nor production of evidence is required. Accordingly, arguments have been heard at length.

5. Shri L. R. Dhiman, learned Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged that by allowing the application, the Insurance Company, in particular, with whom the decree-holder filed the claim in the status of pledgee, regarding the theft of the pledged goods, would be in a position to state about the claim or value thereof to which the judgment-debtors are entitled and the said claim proceeds are, in the first instance, adjustable towards the outstanding dues of the decree-holder, instead, allowing the later to proceed against the other property (immovable property). Thus, according to the arguments of the learned Counsel, the application is liable to be allowed.

6. On the other hand, Shri K. D. Sood, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the decree-holder has vehemently contended that Execution Petition is pending since the year 1985 and till the date of filing of the instant application on October 3, 1989. various objections raised by the judgment- debtors pertaining to the sale of the immovable property have been rejected by this Court lastly by order dated May 19, 1987 whereby it has been held that the objection pertaining to the main residential house of the judgment- debtor being exempted from attachment, had earlier been negatived by a judgment dated August 7, 1979 of a learned Single Judge of this Court in execution petition details of which have been given in the order dated April 3, 1987. In other words, the immovable property of the judgment- debtors under attachment is liable to be sold in execution of the petition. Further, it has been contended that