The court emphasizes the necessity of conducting an inquiry under Section 47 CPC concerning the rival contentions regarding impleadment of parties in execution proceedings.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the Decree Holders in Ex.No.479/2023 on the file of XIV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is directed against the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.3 filed by respondents 2 to 4 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC was allowed by the Executing court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Senior counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the 1^st respondent-Society was the plaintiff in O.S.No.7513/2007, which culminated in a compromise decree dated 30.04.2016 in terms of the memorandum of settlement entered into between the parties before the Mediation Centre. In pursuance of the same, the petitioners filed the instant execution proceedings against the 1^st respondent- Judgment debtor. During the pendency of the said execution proceedings, respondents 2 to 4 claiming to be representatives in interest of the petitioner - Decree holder and also the beneficiaries of the said compromise decree, filed an application to implead themselves, which was allowed by the Executing Court vide the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition.

4. Learned Senior counsel for respondents 2 to 4 submits that though the said application filed by respondents 2 to 4 invoking Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, in substance / essence, the same is an application under Section 47 of the CPC, which requires an inquiry to be conducted to adjudicate upon the rival contentions and not by way of a separate suit. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order may be set aside by treating the application I.A.No.3 as an application under Section 47 CPC and the matter be remitted back to the Executing Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 afresh after conducting necessary enquiry in accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel for the 1^st respondent jointly submits that they do not have any objection for the impugned order to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Executing Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 afresh by treating the same as an application under Section 47 CPC by conducting necessary enquiry in this regard and to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

6. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Executing Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

7. In the result, I pass the following:-

ORDER

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 22.02.2025 passed in Ex.No.479/2023 on I.A.No.3 by the Executing Court is hereby set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Executing court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 afresh in accordance with law.

(iv) The Executing Court is directed to treat I.A.No.3 as an application under Section 47 CPC and conduct necessary enquiry and dispose of the said application afresh in accordance with law within a period of three months from the next date of hearing of the execution proceedings, which is posted on 18.03.2026.

(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of all parties to file additional pleadings and also adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.

(vi) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.