Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 173 (KAR)

V. K. CHOODANATHA SETTY v. P. GOPALACHETTY

1995-03-28

M.B.VISHWANATH

body1995
M. B. VISHWANATH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners are applicants who filed application under order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. Their application was rejected by the trial Court by its order dated 20-1-1995. ( 2 ) IN O. S. No. 1881 of 1980 a preliminary decree was passed and final decree proceedings were pending. It was at that stage the applicants filed the application under Order 1, Rule 10, c. P. C. , to get themselves impleaded as judgment-debtors in the execution petition. ( 3 ) IT should be clearly borne in mind that the two revision petitioners were not parties to the suit. ( 4 ) AT the outset it should be mentioned that Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. does not apply to execution proceedings. If the revision petitioners-applicants have purchased the property involved in the sale proceedings, other remedies are open to them. But they cannot come on record as judgment-debtors when they are not parties to the original suit. Hence the revision petition is rejected. --- *** --- .