Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1954 DIGILAW 10 (KER)

Krishna Pai v. Thrinethran Valiyathamprakkal

1954-01-15

T.K.JOSEPH

body1954
Judgment :- 1. This second appeal arises from an order in execution of a decree. The relevant facts may be stated as follows: 2. The decree dated 17.7.1111 which was a registered one, was assigned by the decree-holder to the appellant, by deed dated 16.5.1116 and the latter applied for execution on 13.8.1116. Notice under Order XXI, R.14 of the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure (corresponding to R.16 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure) was ordered to the original decree-holder and the judgment debtors, after several infructuous attempts, notice was served by affixture. No objection was filed by the decree-holder or the judgment-debtors and on 30.7.1117, the court ordered notice under O. XXI, R.20 (corresponding to R. 22 of the Indian Civil Procedure Code). These were duly served and an order was passed on 7.10.1117 posting the case to 29.10.1117 for taking further steps in execution. The appellant did not apply for further steps and the execution petition was dismissed on the same day. The appellant made a second application for execution on 15.4.1121 applying for impleading the heirs of the 2nd defendant and praying for sale of the property charged under the decree. The 2nd defendant's heirs were impleaded as additional defendants 3 to 6. Notice was served on them but on 14.8.1121 the execution petition was dismissed on the ground that an order for fresh notice to the 1st defendant had not been complied with. The third execution petition was filed on 13.3.1122 for sale of the charged property and for attachment and sale of 2nd defendant's properties. On this, the court ordered that the appellant should apply to get himself impleaded as additional decree-holder. In compliance with this order, an application was made on 13.4.1122. Notice regarding the assignment was again ordered on the same day. The notice to the original decree-holder was returned unserved and the execution petition was dismissed on 27.11.1122, as the appellant failed to comply with an order to pay the requisite process fees for issue of fresh notice. The assignee again applied for execution on 7.3.1124 but it was dismissed the same day, holding that he had not been impleaded. On 30.3.1124, he applied for execution when it was ordered that he should amend the execution petition and produce an affidavit. This execution petition was "struck off" on 2.5.1123. The assignee again applied for execution on 7.3.1124 but it was dismissed the same day, holding that he had not been impleaded. On 30.3.1124, he applied for execution when it was ordered that he should amend the execution petition and produce an affidavit. This execution petition was "struck off" on 2.5.1123. The last execution petition was filed on 30.5.1124 and it was held to be barred by limitation by an order dated 6.3.1125 on the ground that the order dated 27.11.1122 was a judicial order. On appeal by the assignee, the first court's order was confirmed. The assignee has preferred this second appeal. 3. The point urged on behalf of the appellant was that an order recognising the assignment was not necessary and that by ordering notice under O. XX, R. 20 and thereafter ordering further steps to be taken on the execution petition dated 13.8.1115 the Court had allowed the assignee to execute the decree. As stated earlier, notice had been issued on this execution petition to the original decree-holder and the judgment debtors regarding the application by the assignee of the decree and as they did not object to the execution by the assignee notice under O. XXI, R. 20 was issued and duly served on the judgment debtors. Thereafter the case was posted for taking further steps. In effect, the court allowed the assignee to execute the decree. All that is necessary under this rule is that the transferee should merely file his application for execution of the decree, stating either in it or in an affidavit that he is the transferee. Thereupon the court issues notice to the decree-holder and judgment-debtor. The notice which is required by the first proviso is not notice of assignment but notice of the application for execution of the decree by the assignee. On hearing the objections, if any, the Court orders the application for execution to proceed or rejects it. In this case the court ordered execution to proceed as could be seen from the orders on the execution petition dated 13.8.1115. It was held by Mukherji, J. in Brajabashi Hodak v. Manik Chandra (AIR 1927 Cal. 694). "The object of issuing notices under that rule to the transferor and the judgment-debtor is to determine one for all, in the presence of all parties concerned, the validity of the assignment. It was held by Mukherji, J. in Brajabashi Hodak v. Manik Chandra (AIR 1927 Cal. 694). "The object of issuing notices under that rule to the transferor and the judgment-debtor is to determine one for all, in the presence of all parties concerned, the validity of the assignment. It cannot be said that each time the assignee comes to get the decree executed he should come in under this rule". 4. The order to issue notice to the decree-holder on the execution petition dated 13.3.22 was clearly wrong. It was contended that as the later order to issue notice regarding assignment on the execution petition dated 13.3.1122 was wrong and unnecessary, the dismissal of the petition on the ground of non-compliance with that order could not be deemed to be a judicial disposal of the petition. Reliance was placed on the ruling in Kanakku Krishna Pillai Narayana Pillai v. Thevi Amnia Parvathi Amma (33 TLJ 309). In this case, the dismissal of an execution petition on the ground of non-compliance with an order to produce copy of a decree which in fact did not exist was held to be only a ministerial order as the same was passed under a misapprehension. In Subramanian Chettiar v. Official Receiver of Ramnad (AIR 1949 M. 594) it was held that the dismissal of execution petition for non-compliance with an order to attach certain properties which were already under attachment by an earlier order in the same case would not entail the penal consequences under O. XXI, R. 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure of determination of the attachment previously effected. 5. These decisions are not much help in this case. The question whether an order is judicial or not does not depend on its correctness or otherwise. The recent decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Krishna Panicker v. Kochu & Ann (AIR 1954 Travancore-Cochin) =1953 KLT 670, is a complete answer to this contention of the appellant. It was held by the Full Bench that when a wrong order dismissing an execution petition was passed, the decree-holder's duty was to apply for a review of the order or to take that order in appeal and that having allowed the order to become final, it could not be argued that the order was destitute of legal effect. It was held by the Full Bench that when a wrong order dismissing an execution petition was passed, the decree-holder's duty was to apply for a review of the order or to take that order in appeal and that having allowed the order to become final, it could not be argued that the order was destitute of legal effect. If the order dismissing the execution petition was wrong the appellant should have got it vacated by appropriate proceedings. In this case, even though the order was wrong the decree-holder acquiesced in the order to issue notice to the original decree-holder and did in fact take out notice more than once in compliance with the order. The final disposal was with notice to the appellant and the order of dismissal was clearly on account of his default. The form of the order "struck out" is no doubt unsatisfactory but the execution records clearly show that the order was not a ministerial one. He cannot now contend that the order was wrong or that the dismissal has to be treated as void or non-existent. In the result, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.