An application under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC serves to aid execution, enabling ascertainment of judgment debtor assets; failure to provide such information exposes heirs to liability under inheritance laws.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners/Judgment debtors and Mr. D. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent/Decree holder. Perused the record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner Nos.2 to 6/judgment debtor Nos.2 to 6 against the respondent/ Decree holder aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad in E.A.No.14 of 2024 in E.P.No.16 of 2018 in O.S.No.15 of 2015, dated 24.10.2024 directing the petitioners herein to appear before the Court for oral examination and to file their affidavit in support of their contention and granting permission to the decree holder to cross examine the petitioners herein.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are referred in the E.P.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the Decree holder filed a suit for recovery of money of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum against the deceased JDR No.1 vide O.S.No.15 of 2015 and said suit was decreed on 02.11.2017 directing the deceased JDR No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.4,14,174/-. On passing of the decree, the Decree holder filed E.P.No.16 of 2018 against the deceased JDR No.1 for recovery of the decreetal amount. In said E.P, an order dated 21.07.2023 was passed for attachment of immovable property bearing H.No.3-3-229/1, Shivaji Chowk, Panjesha, Adilabad. Aggrieved by said Order, the petitioner Nos.2 to 6/JDR Nos.2 to 6 preferred C.R.P No.2371 of 2023 to set aside the order in E.P.No.16 of 2018. This Court vide Order dated 21.02.2024 has set aside the impugned order dated 21.07.2023 in E.P.No.16 of 2018 and remitted the matter back to the E.P Court for ascertaining the share of the deceased JDR No.1 and JDR Nos.2 to 6 over the property and to dispose of the property after giving due opportunity to both the parties.

5. Upon remittance of the matter back to the E.P Court, the Decree holder filed E.A.No.14 of 2024 in E.P.No.16 of 2018 under Order XXI Rule 41 r/w Section 151 of CPC to summon the JDRs 2 to 6 for the purpose of satisfying the decree by reporting about partition of E.P schedule property, if any, and the shares devolved out of the share acquired by the principal JDR No.1 after the death of original owner Azeezya Begum, who is the wife of the deceased JDR No.1. Aggrieved by said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

6. In grounds of revision, the JDRs 2 to 6 have pleaded that it is the responsibility of the Decree holder to provide the information about the property of the JDR No.1 and that an enquiry has to be conducted independently instead of directing the JDR Nos.2 to 6 to appear before the Court for oral examination. Further, it is pleaded that a petition under Order XXI Rule 41 of CPC is filed at a belated stage when such a petition has to be filed prior to filing of the E.P under Order XXI Rule 11(2) of CPC. Lastly, it is pleaded that under Order XXI Rule 41 of CPC, shares in a joint family property cannot be decided. At best, under said provision, the assets of the JDR No.1 can be determined. In view of the foregoing grounds, the JDR Nos.2 to 6 pleaded that the impugned order be set aside and to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

7. The learned counsel for the JDR Nos.2 to 6 relied upon Judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of United Phosphorus Ltd. v. A.K. Kanoria , 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 503, wherein, it is held that an application under Order XXI Rule 41 of CPC is not an execution petition, but an application filed for the purpose of