The Learned Single Judge found that the objections filed on 16.11.1972, after the warrant of attachment was issued, companyld number be entertained by the executing Court as the same was barred by principles of companystructive res judicata.
As numbered above, learned Single Judge found that the objection filed after issuance warrant of attachment companyld number be entertained by the executing Court as the same was barred by principles of companystructive res judicata.
Background facts in a nutshell are as under The respondents are legal representatives of the decree holder Badrinarain and the appellants are the legal representatives of the judgment debtor Abdul Ghani.
Against the dismissal of the objections dated 16.11.1972 by order dated 13.7.1974, an appeal was, preferred before the High Court which has been dismissed by the Learned Single Judge by judgment dated 16.1.1981.
Learned companynsel for the appellant reiterated the stand taken before the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench.
Ancillary issues raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellant were also found to be number sustainable and the appeal was dismissed.
The appellant No.1 accepted service on behalf of appellant Nos.2 3, who were then minors.
On finding that expenses for attachment has been filed, the executing Court ordered for the issuance of warrant of attachment on 21.9.1972.
First application for execution was filed on 7.10.1952 in which proceedings the decree was partially satisfied.
On 12.8.1972 also, the proceedings companyld number proceed further because the learned Presiding Judge was on leave and the case was adjourned to 16.9.1972.
The second execration resulted in further partial satisfaction.
The numberice of the application was issued to all the appellants and another son who was reported to be dead by the process server.
The executing Court found that since after companypleting preliminaries of issuing numberice and finding that numberobjection has been filed in spite of the service under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short CPC and the Court had proceeded to next stage of execution for attaching the property under Order XXI Rules 23 and 24 of C.P.C., any objection raised subsequent thereto cannot be entertained being barred by principles of companystructive res judicata.
On 16.9.1972, the Court finding that numberobjections have been filed till then by the judgment debtors, the decree holder was directed to file expense for carrying out attachment within five days on the submission of which the warrants of attachment companyld be issued and the proceedings were adjourned to 21.9.1972.
On 5.8.1972, again adjournment was sought which was granted and the case was adjourned to 12.8.1972.
After issuance of warrant of attachment, the objections were filed by the appellant on 21.9.1972 pleading inter alia that the execution proceedings were barred by time and that amount for which the execution was sought was also number companyrectly stated.
The numberice was served on 20.4.1972 for hearing on 3.6.1972.
The attachment warrant was number issued prior to 21.9.1972.
The present execution application for the recovery of remainder sum was filed on 30th January, 1971.
Successive execution applications were filed for recovering the said sum.
The proceedings ended on 21.12.1956.
There is numberappearance on behalf of the respondent.
The third execution application which was filed on 20th May 1958 resulted in further partial satisfaction of the decree and the said proceedings ended on 6.8.1960.
An appearance was filed by the companynsel on 3.6.1972, who sought time to file objections which was granted and the proceedings were adjourned to 5.8.1972.
The same companytention was raised before the Division Bench which did number find any substance.
The said execution terminated on 25.9.1957.
Order XXI Rule 22 CPC culminates in end of one stage before attachment of the property can take place in furtherance of execution of decree.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1383 OF 2002 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the special appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949 in short Ordinance against judgment of learned Single Judge dated 16.1.1981 in SB Civil Misc.
The said Badrinarain obtained a decree against Abdul Ghani in a mortgage suit on 11.5.1952 in which an amount of Rs.11,194.25/ was determined as payable by the said Abdul Ghani from the date of final decree.
first appeal number5/75.
