Sujoy Paul, J.

1. Brief facts for adjudication of this matter are as under:

2. The Respondent No. 1-State of Madhya Pradesh acquired the land belonging to the Petitioner and his mother namely Smt. Dhanwanti Bai for public purpose under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. In lieu of the land acquired, the compensation was awarded by the Collector by his award. Since the award was not adequate, the Petitioner and his mother and other claimants applied for reference under the said Act. The reference was made to the Reference Court, namely, the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Bhind under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. The said Court is hereinafter called as 'Reference Court'. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation by award dated 29.11.1996 (Annexure P/2). The award got stamp of approval by this Court in Appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that the said award is a "decree" within the meaning of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For execution of said award, the Petitioner filed an execution application jointly before the Reference/Executing Court on 28.3.1997 (Annexure P/3). The case was registered as Execution Case No. 8/92x97.

4. During pendency of execution proceedings, the decree-holders (present Petitioner and his mother Dhanwanti Bai and other claimants) engaged Shri Ramnarayan Gupta, Advocate, as well as Shri Brijesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate (Respondent No. 2 in the present petition).

5. Shri Brijesh Gupta initially represented the decree-holders for some period, thereafter without the knowledge of decree-holders on his own as counsel for the decree-holders, submitted an application dated 4.7.2000 (Annexure P/5) alleging that the decree has been purchased by him by a registered sale deed dated 14.12.1999 and, therefore, in place of original decree-holders, his name be substituted as decree-holder.

6. Reference Court vide impugned order dated 11.10.2006 (Annexure P/1) has allowed the said application. Against which, the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Shri Sanjeev Jain has raised a singular ground. Shri Jain submits that as per Section 136 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the 'T.P. Act'), the Respondent No. 2 Brijesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate could not have purchased the decree and Court below without examining the impediment of Section 136 aforesaid has committed a manifest error of law in allowing the application dated 4.7.2000 (Annexure P/5).

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. For ready reference, Section 136 of T.P. Act is reproduced here as under:

136. Incapacity of officers connected with Courts of Justice.--No judge, legal practitioner or officer connected with any Court of Justice shall buy or traffic in, or stipulate for, or agree to receive any share of, or interest in, any actionable claim, and no Court of Justice shall enforce, at his instance, or at the instance of any person claiming by or through him, any actionable claim so dealt with by him as aforesaid.

10. According to Shri Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the decree which is purchased by Respondent No. 2 falls within the four corners of Section 136 of the T.P. Act and, therefore, it could not have been done by the Respondent No. 2 and the Court below should not have permitted his application in the teeth of impediment under Section 136 of the T.P. Act.

11. Section 136 of the T.P. Act can be an impediment in receiving any "share", "interest" or any "actionable claim". Admittedly the decree cannot be said to be a 'share' or 'interest'. The only question which is required to be examined is whether decree can be said to be an 'actionable claim' ?

12. Therefore, the singular question which now requires to be decided is whether the action of purchasing decree falls within the ambit of Section 136 of T.P. Act.

13. Meaning of word "actionable" as per Black's Law Dictionary