JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.S. Dhillon, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8. None appears on call for the other respondents. 2. By filing this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.01.2014, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi, in Money Execution Case No. 65/2012, arising out of judgment and decree dated 09.02.2011, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Hailakandi, in Money Suit No. 75/2009. By the said order, the petition filed under Section 47 of the CPC by the Branch Manager of the petitioner, who was the judgment debtor No. 6 in the said execution proceeding was rejected. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the principle respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein, as plaintiffs, had filed a suit before the learned Trial Court stating, inter-alia, that the plaintiffs were entitled to their respective shares to the estate left behind by the husband of the respondent/plaintiff No. 3. 4. It was also projected in the suit that the husband of the respondent/plaintiff No. 3 died while he was in service as an employee of the Hindustan Paper Corporation/Cachar Paper Mill, Pachgram and left behind the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 as well as defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as the legal successors to his property and it was projected that there were certain deposits of LIC policy of the deceased to which the said plaintiffs were entitled to. It was prayed in the suit that the plaintiffs were entitled to their respective shares as mentioned in Schedule-A, B and C appended to the plaint and for a decree that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 had no right to appropriate the money of Schedule-A and for a decree directing that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 had no right to appropriate the money of Schedule-A to the plaint and for further release of the said amount to the plaintiffs. 5. The Branch Manager of the petitioner, who is the defendant No. 6 in the said suit, did not contest the suit and the suit proceeded ex-parte against him. 6. 1 to 3 and 6 had no right to appropriate the money of Schedule-A to the plaint and for further release of the said amount to the plaintiffs. 5. The Branch Manager of the petitioner, who is the defendant No. 6 in the said suit, did not contest the suit and the suit proceeded ex-parte against him. 6. It would be appropriate to mention here that the defendant No. 6 in the suit was the Branch Manager, Kalacherra. The suit was decreed against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with cost and by holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 6,666/- Rs.28,780/- and Rs. 57,959/- from the defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 4 herein) and the defendant No. 6 (petitioner herein) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till complete realization. As per the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court in the suit, the liability was imposed on the petitioner herein by holding that the petitioner had appropriated the proceeds of the concerned LIC policy. 7. In course of time, Money Execution Case No. 65/2012 was filed and proceeded against the petitioner herein. In the said proceeding, a notice was issued to the Branch Manager of the petitioner to show cause as to why the recovery of Rs.1,03,705/- along with interest @ 6% per annum should not be made. On receiving the notice, the Branch Manager of the petitioner herein approached the Life Insurance Corporation of India, and on 28.10.2013, the Silchar Division of LICI issued a certificate stating that the policy bearing No. 490915541 on the life of Siraj Uddin Choudhury was not assigned and the nominee of the policy was the present respondent No. 4 and a death claim payment of the policy has been made in favour of the nominee of Rs. 1,32,264/- vide cheque No. 0081680 dated 17.09.2009 and the cheque was duly encashed. On receiving the said information, the Branch Manager of the petitioner approached the learned Executing Court and filed an objection against the execution and prayed for dismissal of the execution case against the petitioner herein. 1,32,264/- vide cheque No. 0081680 dated 17.09.2009 and the cheque was duly encashed. On receiving the said information, the Branch Manager of the petitioner approached the learned Executing Court and filed an objection against the execution and prayed for dismissal of the execution case against the petitioner herein. The learned Executing Court, i.e., learned Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi, by the impugned order dated 07.01.2014, refused to interfere with the matter and rejected the said application on the ground that when the competent Court had already held the petitioner therein to be liable under the decree, the said Court could not adjudicate the same again in exercise of powers under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 states that he has nothing to argue in this case because the decree is not executed against them as they are not a necessary party in the present case. 9. Having heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that LIC certificate, which was produced before the learned Executing Court is a prima facie proof that the beneficiary of the LIC policy in question was not the petitioner bank as there was a nominee appointed in respect of the said policy. Moreover, the said LIC policy, having not been assigned, could not have been paid to the petitioner’s bank as a beneficiary and therefore, it would have been appropriate for the learned Trial Court to examine the said issue before rejecting the said application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover, this Court is of the view under no stretch of imagination that a Branch Manager can be said to be a beneficiary. The Branch Manager is only the head of the Branch and if a decree to make payment could only have been passed only against the employer and without arraying the bank as the defendant in the suit, no liability can be settled against the Branch Manager. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the execution cannot proceed only against the Branch Manager without arraying the employer, i.e. Cachar Gramin Branch as being the judgment debtor in the case. The payment of money under the decree must be made by the Bank and cannot be made by the Branch Manager. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the execution cannot proceed only against the Branch Manager without arraying the employer, i.e. Cachar Gramin Branch as being the judgment debtor in the case. The payment of money under the decree must be made by the Bank and cannot be made by the Branch Manager. Therefore, so far as a decree against the petitioner judgment debtor No. 6 is concerned, this Court finds that the decree is inexecutable. The Executing Court appears to have exercised jurisdiction vested in it with material irregularity. 10. Therefore, this revision is allowed by holding that the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2011, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Hailakandi, in Money Suit No. 75/2009, which is the subject-matter of execution in Money Execution Case No. 65/2012, pending before the Court of Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi, is inexecutable against the petitioner, i.e. Cachar Gramin Bank or against the Branch Manager, Cachar Gramin Bank, who is arrayed as the judgment debtor No. 6 in the said execution proceeding. 11. Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. 12. There shall be no order as to cost.