Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1501 (ALL)

Karan Singh v. Sri Luxmi Narayan

2014-05-08

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Smt. Anita Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The suit of the respondents for compensation on account of death of their son Devendra due to negligence of the U.P. Power Corporation including the petitioner was decreed vide judgment and order dated 20.4.2009. The said judgment and order directs the defendants to the suit which includes the petitioner and the U.P. Power Corporation to make the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondents with 6% interest from the date of filing of the suit ie. 7.2.1992 till its payment. The said decree has been affirmed by the appellate court and the second appeal arising therefrom has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 5.12.2011 without disturbing the said decree. 3. The respondents have applied for execution of the said decree wherein objections of the petitioners under Section 47 CPC have been rejected on 16.2.2013. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 11.4.2014, the executing court has directed for taking steps for attachment of the property of the petitioner so as to realize the amount decreed. 4. In challenging the said order by means of the present writ petition, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that until and unless the liability of the petitioner for payment of compensation under the decree is apportioned, no amount is liable to be recovered and therefore the order to proceed for attachment is illegal. 5. The aforesaid decree is final and conclusive. The petitioner is one of the judgment debtor under the said decree and is bound to honour the same.The decree is executable against the petitioner in its entirety. 6. The decree which is sought to be executed is joint and the amount payable thereunder is recoverable from either of the judgment debtors without the amount being apportioned. In case petitioner contends that he is not liable to pay the entire amount, he can recover the amount from the other judgment debtor after making payment to the decree holders. Any direction of this Court while disposing of the second appeal permitting the petitioner to move an application for apportionment of the liability to satisfy the decree would not help the petitioner so as to avoid payment of the amount under the decree. 7. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.