Heard Sri C. D. Bahuguna, counsel for the revisionists and Sri Pankaj Purohit, counsel for the respondents/ Opposite parties.

2. By the present civil revisions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the revisionists have prayed for setting aside the order dated 11th May, 2005 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court,

Chamoli, Gopeshwar passed in Execution Case No. 21 of 2004 whereby the Judge Small Cause Courts has allowed the objections filed by the opposite parties under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.

3. Briefly stated, the suit for rent and ejectment was filed by late Sri Murli Dhar, father of the revisionists in the year, 1987. The suit was contested by the defendant no. 1 and was decreed on 16-03-1991.

4. Thereafter a revision was pre ferred being Revision No. 493 of 2001 by Sri Dalip Singh and Sri Ram Singh, which was dismissed on 16th August 2004. Following order was passed:

"counsel for the applicant has prayed some time to vacate the premises. The time to vacate the premises is granted to the applicant to vacate the premises by 31-12-2004 subject to the undertaking fur nished by the applicant within a pe riod of one month before the J. S. C. C. to the following effect:

(i) The applicant shall give the un dertaking that he will vacate the premises by 31 -12-2004.

(ii) The applicant shall pay the en tire arrears of rent and damages due upto the filing of the under taking before the J. S. C. C.

(iii) The applicant shall pay regularly damages according to the rate of rent on every first week of the month.

(iv) In case of default, the stay or der shall stand discharged and the applicant shall execute the decree forthwith.

Subject to the above, the. revision is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. "

5. It has come on the record that Ram Singh-opposite party no. 2 has also preferred a SLP before the Apex Court arid the same was also dismissed. Thus the order passed by this Court on 16th August, 2004 has become final.

6. During the execution proceedings objections were filed by the transferee as 58-Ga and 63-Ga stating therein that he has purchased 1/3rd portion of the premises in dispute by virtue of sale deed dated 29th September, 2004 from the decree holder Govind Singh- defend ant no. 2, Sishupal Singh, Murli Singh and Bhupal Singh.

7. The executing Court has come to the conclusion that once the judgment debtor has purchased the share of Govind Singh to the extent of 1/3rd, he has stepped into the shoes of the co-owners and has acquired the rights as a co-owner and as such objections were allowed. The executing Court has com pletely ignored the order of the High Court by which time was allowed to vacate the premises to the tenant.

8. It is well settled that the execut ing Court cannot go beyond the decree as will appear from the definition of Sec tion 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure itself, where It has been held that the executing Court cannot enquire as to whether the decree was passed with the finding and whether the decree was valid or not. Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:

"47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree.- (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.

(2) [**]

(3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such ques tion shall, for the purposes of this sec tion, be determined by the Court.

[explanation1.-For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dis missed are parties to the suit.

Explanation 11.- (a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and

(b) all questions rela

Click Here to Read the rest of this document