SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(HP) 2700

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
TARA SINGH — Appellant
Vs.
GOVIND SINGH — Respondent
CMPMO No. 313 of 2016
Decided On : 30-11-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi.
For the Respondent: Mr. Desh Raj Thakur.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree for permanent injunction can be executed against the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor, and the cause of action does not die with the judgment debtor.

Headnote:

Legal Representative - Execution of Decree - Section 50, Section 146, Order 21 Rule 32 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 50, Section 146, and Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It highlighted the liability of legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor and the execution of decree against them. The court also referred to various judgments to establish the legal framework for executing a decree against legal representatives.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition against the order passed by the Executing Court, which dismissed the application for substituting the legal heirs of the judgment debtor after his death. The petitioner sought to execute a decree against the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order of the Executing Court was erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of the law. It directed the lower court to restore the Execution Petition and the Application to its original numbers and proceed to decide the same in accordance with the law.

Issues: The main issue was whether the decree holder could apply to the Executing Court for implementation of the decree against the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a decree for permanent injunction can be executed by the decree holder or his legal representatives against the judgment debtor's heirs or even the transferee of the judgment debtor. It also clarified that the cause of action does not die with the judgment debtor and can be pursued against the legal representatives.

Final Decision: The present petition was disposed of, and the lower court was directed to restore the Execution Petition and the Application to its original numbers and proceed to decide the same in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order passed by the Executing Court on 3.5.2016 whereby it dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-decree holder for substituting the legal heirs of the judgment debtor on account of his death.

2. The proceedings before the learned Executing Court emanate from the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner-decree holder whereby the original judgment debtor Govind Singh was permanently restrained from interfering in the suit land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 397/681 bearing Khasra No. 1675/112/4 measuring 14 biswa situated in Mauza Bhagani, Tehsil Paonta Sahib District Sirmaur, H.P.

3. The original debtor Govind Singh was alleged to have violated the judgment and decree leading to file the execution petition under Order 21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He, however, died and after his death, the petitioner moved an application for bringing on record his legal representatives, which has been dismissed by the learned Executing Court on the ground that wilful disobedience and violation of judgment and decree is a penal provision and its cause of action dies with the defaulter.

4. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned Executing Court are totally perverse and based on misconstruction of law on the subject.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

6. At the outset, it would be necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure:

"Section 50. Legal representative.

(1) Where a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representative of the deceased.

(2) Where the decree is executed against such legal representative, he shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been duly disposed of; and, for the purpose of ascertaining such liability, the Court executing the decree may, of its own motion or on the application of the decree-holder, compel such legal representative to produce such accounts as it thinks fit.

Section 146. Proceedings by or against representatives.

Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any law for the time being in force, where any proceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person then the proceeding may be taken or the application may be made by or against any person claiming under him.

Order 21, Rule 32 - Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction

(1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both.

(2) Where the party against whom a decree for specific performance or for an injunctions been passed is a corporation, the decree may be enforced by the attachment of the property of the corporation or, with the leave of the Court by the detention in the civil prison of the directors or other principal officers thereof, or by both attachment and detention.

(3) Where any attachment under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) has remained in force for [six months] if the judgment-debtor has not obeyed the decree and the decree-holder has applied to have the attached property sold, such property may be sold; and out of the proceeds the Court may award to the decree-holder such compensation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top