The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'legal representative' under Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure and its application to the execution of a compromise decree.

( 1 ) HEARD Shri Swaraj Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 9-4-1984 passed by learned munsif, Gorakhpur rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order XXI, Rule 32 code of Civil Procedure and order dated 25-3-1985 passed by VIIth Additional District judge dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts of the case are, a suit No. 444 of 1931 was filed by two plaintiffs namely Hari Prasad and Devi Prasad against two defendants namely Baba Swarup Das and Harnam Singh for mandatory injunction seeking demolition of the disputed constructions and damages. The said suit was ultimately decided in terms of the compromise on 21-12-1931. Compromise provided that disputed constructions made by the defendants would not be demolished but the said defendants were restrained from making any further constructions towards east of the land EF shown in the map. An application for execution under Order XXI, Rule 32 was moved by the petitioner before munsif-I Gorakhpur. The applicant claimed himself to be legal representative of the plaintiffs. Applicant alleged that constructions have been made against the terms of compromise decree. It was prayed that respondents be sent to civil prison and their properties be attached. An objection supported by an affidavit was filed by the contesting respondents to the execution application. Objectors stated that they were not parties to the suit and they are not heirs of baba Swarup Das and Harnam Singh, the execution application is not maintainable against them. It was stated that Guru Singh sabha is a registered body which came into existence in the year 1953-54 and prior to that Guru Nanak Pracharini Sabha was in existence. Several other objections were taken in the application. Learned Munsif after hearing both the parties vide its order dated 9-4-1984 rejected the application. A revision was filed by the petitioner before the District Judge which too was rejected by the order dated 25-3-1965 passed by viith Additional District Judge. Against these two orders this writ petition has been filed.

( 4 ) SHRI Swaraj Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that objectors are legal representatives of the defendants of Suit No. 444 of 1931 hence they are bound by the decree. It is contended that contesting respondents are intermeddler and are covered with the definition of legal representative as given in Section 2 (11) of Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended that compromise decree was binding on the contesting respondents and the Courts-below have committed error in taking a contrary view. He further stated that separate suit cannot be filed by the petitioner.

( 5 ) I have considered the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. Learned Munsif held that suit No. 444 of 1931 was not a suit of representative nature and the defendants were also not impleaded in representative capacity. The learned Munsif further held that decree of injunction was not binding on the respondents since they were not party to the earlier suit. The learned Munsif held that remedy of the applicant lies in filing a suit against the contesting respondents.

( 6 ) THE revisional Court after hearing both the parties found that although Gurunanak dharam Pracharini Sabha was in existence at a time when original suit No. 444 of 1931 was filed yet the said Sabha was not made party. The suit was not having character of representative suit. The decree was not passed against Gurunanak Dharam Pracharini Sabha. The objectors cannot be held to be legal representative of judgment debtors of original Suit No. 444 of 1931. The revisional Court also took the view that separate suit ought to have been filed against the contesting respondents.

( 7 ) THE counsel for the petitioner has given much emphasis on Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure wh