JUDGMENT : H.L. Agrawal, C.J. - This application arises out of an order dated 19-8-1983 passed by the Executing Court rejecting the objection of the Petitioners to the order of their detention in the Civil prison for the alleged obstruction to a delivery of possession in the following circumstance's. 2. The decree holders obtained a decree for delivery of possession of a wall. The Executing Court issued a writ for delivery of possession of the wall through the bailiff of the Court, but possession of only a portion of the wall could be delivered to the decree holders due to the alleged obstruction caused by the Petitioners and 'the judgment debtors (the parents of the Petitioners). The decree thus could not be executed fully and a report dated 12-9-1978 was submitted by the bailiff to that effect. The decree-holders then filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 97 of the CPC in I he Executing Court for putting the judgment-debtors and their sons in the civil prison, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 141 of 1978. Undisputedly, notice of the said petition was issued only against the judgment-debtors but the Executing Court by its order dated 8-7-1981 directed the father and the sons (the Petitioners) to be put in the civil prison for 5 days. The principal judgment debtors, vis the father and the mother of the Petitioners, challenged that order before the District Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 31 of 1981 and the learned District Judge by his judgment and order dated 27-2-1982 dismissed the appeal with the following observation: ...though a complaint was made against the sons of the judgment-debtors, no notice of the petition...was served on any of them...no order can be passed against a person without giving him a hearing. After the aforesaid order, the Executing Court issued notice to the sons (the Petitioners) who appeared and filed separate objection petitions inter alia on the point of limitation; as the complaint under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC was filed beyond the period of 30 days prescribed under Article 129 of the limitation Act, 1963. After the aforesaid order, the Executing Court issued notice to the sons (the Petitioners) who appeared and filed separate objection petitions inter alia on the point of limitation; as the complaint under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC was filed beyond the period of 30 days prescribed under Article 129 of the limitation Act, 1963. The Executing Court, however, passed a peculiar order on the objection petitions of the judgment-debtors sons that 'no such ground of limitation was taken earlier at the time of hearing and that the same was raised before that Court for the first time." It accordingly rejected the objection petitions filed by the sons observing that they had no locus standi for taking such a plea The question that thus, falls for decisions is as to whether the Petitioners who were not given any notice of the proceeding much less any chance of defending themselves could be non-suited because an earlier order was already passed after hearing the principal judgment debtors. 3. I am sorry to observe that the view taken-by the learned Munsif is entirely misconceived. As already stated above, the sons were not noticed on the earlier occasion' and therefore, they had no occasion to take such ground at all. The proceeding being penal in nature, every person against whom the petition of complaint is made in the Executing Court has an independent right of defence. The sons were not substituted as legal representatives in place of the original judgment debtors so as to bind them by the position taken by, their parents. As observed by the learned District Judge the sons of the principal judgment debtors were to be given an opportunity to raise objections, if any. The Petitioners cannot be said to be bound either by the principle of estoppel or res judicata. Particularly the plea of limitation could be agitated at any stage and the Executing Court under the mandate of Section 3 at the limitation Act was bound to apply the law of limitation. That having not been done, the Executing Court has committed a serious error of jurisdiction exhibiting complete lack of knowledge of the law. 4. In the result, the application must succeed and is accordingly, allowed since the plea of limitation is glaring on the face of the record. That having not been done, the Executing Court has committed a serious error of jurisdiction exhibiting complete lack of knowledge of the law. 4. In the result, the application must succeed and is accordingly, allowed since the plea of limitation is glaring on the face of the record. I am not inclined to remit back the matter of the Executing Court thereby putting the Petitioners to further harassment and would dispose of the matter here and now. I hold that the application under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC being apparently barred by limitation the order of detention at the Petitioners in the civil prison is bad in law. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the opposite parties, I shall make no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed