9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the simultaneous Execution Petitions are sustainable to execute the decree obtained in C.S. No. 28/1975 without obtaining permission of this Court? 2. Whether the appeals are liable to be dismissed in view of the order dated 18.7.2000 in the Appeals? Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Simultaneous Execution Petitions The primary issue in these appeals revolves around the maintainability of simultaneous Execution Petitions filed by the appellant without obtaining the Court's permission. The assignee-decree holder filed multiple Execution Petitions (E.P. Nos. 58, 69, 70, and 71 of 1986) in the High Court without seeking permission for simultaneous execution, which was contested by the respondents. The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the Original Side Rules of the High Court. Under Section 38 of the CPC, a decree may be executed either by the Court which passed it or by the Court to which it is sent for execution. Section 39 allows for the transfer of a decree for execution to another Court. However, there is no explicit prohibition in Section 39 against simultaneous execution by the Court that passed the decree and the transferee Court. Order 21, Rule 21 of the CPC, which deals with simultaneous execution, states: "The Court may, in its discretion, refuse execution at the same time against the person and property of the judgment-debtor." This provision, however, does not address simultaneous execution in different Courts or multiple execution petitions in the same Court. The Court also referred to the Original Side Rules, particularly Order 39, which governs the execution of decrees and orders on the Original Side of the High Court. Order 39, Rule 6 permits execution in more than one Court contemporaneously. However, the Court emphasized that before allowing simultaneous execution, the decree-holder must seek permission from the Court that passed the decree. This requirement ensures that the interests of the judgment-debtor are protected, preventing the possibility of realizing more amounts than the judgment debt. The Court cited several precedents, including Division Bench decisions in Pedda Subba Rao v. Ankamma and Maharaja of Bobbili v. Sree Raja Narasaraju Peda Baliar Simhulu Bahadur, which support the necessity of obtaining prior permission for simultaneous execution. The Court concluded that without such permission, the simultaneous Execution Petitions are not maintainable. Issue 2: Dismissal of Appeals Due to Non-Compliance with Order Dated 18.7.2000 The second issue pertains to the dismissal of appeals due to the appellant's failure to serve notice on certain respondents as per the Court's order dated 18.7.2000. The Division Bench had granted the appellant time until 24.7.2000 to comply with the required formalities, failing which the appeals would be automatically dismissed. The Court noted that the appellant did not take steps to serve notice on respondents 1 and 5 in O.S.A. Nos. 51 to 53 of 1991, respondents 6 and 7 in O.S.A. Nos. 54 to 56 of 1991, and respondents 6 and 7 in O.S.A. Nos. 68 and 69 of 1991. The appellant's counsel could not demonstrate compliance with the Court's direction. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the order dated 18.7.2000. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the learned single Judge's order that the simultaneous Execution Petitions were not maintainable without prior permission from the Court that passed the decree. Additionally, the appeals were dismissed due to the appellant's failure to serve notice on certain respondents as required by the Court's order dated 18.7.2000. The Court emphasized the necessity of obtaining permission for concurrent execution to protect the interests of the judgment-debtor and ensure proper execution proceedings.
|
