A person not claiming through the judgment-debtors cannot file objections on the ground that he is not liable to be ejected in execution of a decree obtained by the decree-holder against the judgment-debtor. The remedy for such a person is to file a separate suit.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. One Madan Lal was the owner of the shop in dispute which was sold to Jagru. This sale was challenged by the sons of Madan Lal; namely, Nand Lal, Kesri Nandan and Krishan Pal on the ground that the sale was not for a consideration and was therefore, without legal necessity. The suit for declaration was decreed and when the matter came up before this Court, the sale was converted into a mortgage and it was held that the mortgage can be redeemed on payment of Rs. 628/- on the death of vendor, Madan Lal. Madan Lal, vendor, died on 23-121969, and thereafter, his sons filed a suit for possession claiming themselves to be the heirs along with Smt. Raj Rani d/o Madan Lal, who was made a proforma defendant. They claimed that they were entitled to the possession of the property on the basis of the decree of redemption of mortgage. The suit was decreed against the respondents who filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was also dismissed on 17-10-1979.

2. Thereafter, decree-holders filed execution application in order to take possession of the shop in dispute. Before possession of the shop could be delivered in execution of the decree, Inderjit Singh who is son of Mukandi Lal, one of the judgment-debtors, filed an objection petition under Section 47, read with Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, challenging the maintainability of ths execution application. He raised an objection that he alongwith his father Mukandi Lal has purchased 2/5th share from Kesri Nandan and Koshalya Devi, two of the decree-holders, and therefore, he cannot be dispossessed from the shop in dispute being one of the co-sharers. This objection petition was resisted by the petitioner and the remaining decree-holders. The following issues were framed by the executing Court :-

-

1. Whether the objector has purchased one half share of respondents No. 4 and 5 vide registered sale deed dated 9-8-1977 ? OP obj.

2. Whether the objector has obtained possession of the shop in question from the JD ? OP obj.

3. Relief.

Both these issues were decided in favour of objector, Inderjit. The executing Court after finding that objector-Inderjit alongwith Mukandi Lal has purchased 2/5th share and is in possession of the shop in dispute as a co-sharer, held that the only remedy for the remaining decree-holders is to get the property partitioned. This order is being impugned in the present revision petition.

3. No one appears on behalf of respondent, objector. Counsel for the petitioner contended that objection petition under Section 47, C.P.C. was not maintainable on behalf of respondent No. 1 as he was not a party to the suit. He further contended that Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C. relates to the attachment, whereas, the property has not been attached here; rather, the execution has been filed for the delivery of possession of the shop.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am Of the view that this revision petition deserves to succeed.

5. Under Section 47, C.P.C, the question arising between the parties to the suit, relating to the execution, can be determined. Where a question for decision does not arise between the parties to the suit or their representatives, it cannot be decided under this Section. Admittedly, objector is not claiming himself to be a representative of the judgment-debtors. The only recourse available to him is a separate suit and not an objection petition under Section 47, C.P.C.

6. The next question which arises for determination is whether any person not claiming through the judgment-debtors, can file objections on the ground that he is not liable to be ejected in execution of decree obtained by decree-holders against judgment-debtors. This proposition is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harijan Wood Workers Production-cum-Sales Co operative Society Ltd, v. Smt, Maya Wati, A. I. R. 1985 P. & H. 181. In this case, where provisions of Order 21, rule 97, C.P.C. eame up for considerat