Judgment 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the entertaining of the Execution Petition in E.P.No.2537 of 2014 in O.S.No.10 of 2001 on the file of the First Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the Execution Petition itself is not maintainable and the Executing Court is not correct in taking the Execution Petition on file. In support of his contention, the decision, rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Mukesh Hans and another vs. Smt. Uma Bhasin and others, is relied upon, where under, it has been held in para 12 as under: “12. There is no contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.2. Therefore, case against defendant No.2 is not based on any contract nor there is any such liability on defendant No.2. Consequently, there is no cause of action against defendant No.2. Since there is no cause of action against defendant No.2, the plaint is liable to be rejected so far as defendant No.2 is concerned.” 3. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that as per the terms of the decree, the liability is only on the company and not on the directors of the company. 3.1. In view of the issue raised, the Executing Court is directed to consider the objection of the respondent in the light of the decision of the Delhi High Court as cited supra, and to pass further orders. 4. The objection shall be filed immediately, preferably within one week, before the Executing Court. On such objection being filed, the Executing Court is directed to dispose of E.P.No.2537 of 2014 in O.S.No.10 of 2001, within a period of one month from the date of filing of the objection. 5. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.