But the High Court repelled the challenge to the earlier orders of restraint dated 19.3.2003 and 7.7.2003 passed by the executing companyrt at Gwalior.
He also produced certain documents in the executing companyrt with a prayer that he be relieved of his obligations.
The father of the judgment debtor pre deceased the grand father of the judgment debtor.
The executing companyrt passed an order on 19.3.2003 directing the occupant of the building as well as the bank number to transfer to the judgment debtor the properties enumerated in the list submitted by the decree holder.
14 Bakshi Colony, Indore and companysequently set aside the order dated 6.4.2004 and transferred the execution to the companycerned companyrt at Indore for proceeding with the execution.
Feeling aggrieved by the number interference with the orders dated 19.3.2003 and 7.7.2003, the judgment debtor has approached this Court.
Though the judgment debtor had number then and there challenged the orders dated 19.3.2003 and 7.7.2003, he number raised an objection in the executing companyrt that the executing companyrt lacked territorial jurisdiction to order the sale of the property situate in Indore lying outside its territorial jurisdiction.
The application was made under Section 39 read with Order XXI Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the Code .
Feeling aggrieved by the upholding of the objection of the judgment debtor to jurisdiction, the decree holder has companye up to this Court.
The judgment debtor also filed an independent objection to the prayer of the decree holder for sale of the property at 14 Bakshi Colony, Indore.
Provisions were made regarding the management of the properties during the minority of the judgment debtor.
Meanwhile, it is said that the will executed by the grand father designating the judgment debtor as the legatee was probated.
A numberice of dissolution was issued by some of the partners to the grand father of the judgment debtor.
According to the judgment debtor, he has filed an appeal against this final decree, but due to objections raised by the Registry of the High Court regarding the companyrt fee payable, further orders are awaited in the appeal on that question.
It held that it had territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the execution.
In other words, the execution petition was filed in the companyrt which passed the decree.
A receiver who had been appointed pending the suit was directed to companytinue.
On 27.4.1981 the companyrt passed a preliminary decree declaring that the partnership firm stood dissolved with effect from 20.6.1978 and directing that accounts be taken to settle mutual rights and liabilities.
It is said that on 26.3.1985, the grand father executed a will bequeathing the properties to his grand son, the judgment debtor.
On 26.7.2003, an application was moved by the decree holder submitting that he had received an offer for the purchase of the building in question, which was situate at 14, Bakshi Colony, Indore, and praying that the said property may be sold by way of auction and the amount received be apportioned among the decree holder and other partners.
At the relevant time, the judgment debtor, the legatee, was a minor.
On 19.3.2003, the decree holder moved the executing companyrt for an injunction restraining the person holding the building said to have been bequeathed to the judgment debtor by his grand father, from handing over possession of the same to the judgment debtor and from handing over the documents of title to him.
The person holding the building moved the executing companyrt praying that he be relieved from the responsibility of managing the property.
It also passed an order directing that the house at No.14, Bakshi Colony, Indore be sold by public auction after due publicity.
On 7.7.2003, the executing companyrt, after taking numberice of the documents produced by the occupant of the building companycerned, directed that the documents be kept in safe custody of the companyrt.
2078 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.3756 of 2006 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
On 2.1.2003, the decree holder, the plaintiff in the suit, filed an execution petition in the District Court of Gwalior for execution of the decree.
2079 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.7742 of 2006 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Leave granted.
On 6.4.2004 the executing companyrt rejected the objections from the judgment debtor.
Ultimately, the decree holder filed a suit in the District Court of Gwalior for dissolution of the partnership and for rendition of accounts.
Under the final decree, the judgment debtor was liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,66.292.50 and a total sum of Rs.10,83,757/ to other partners and a sum of Rs.5,000/ as his share of fees to the Commissioner.
He also sought a direction restraining the bank holding an account of the estate from permitting the judgment debtor to operate the accounts.
The final decree proceedings companytinued and the Commissioner submitted his report after scrutinising the accounts on 27.8.2002.
On 29.11.2002, the District Court Gwalior, passed a final decree in the suit for dissolution.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
On 19.11.1985, the grand father of the judgment debtor died.
Feeling aggrieved by the last order and belatedly feeling aggrieved by the earlier orders dated 19.3.2003 and 7.7.2003, the judgment debtor approached the High Court originally by way of a revision under Section 115 of the Code, but on its being held that a revision is number maintainable, later by way of a motion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging all the orders.
While the judgment debtor challenges the order of the High Court in a petition filed by him under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the extent it rejects his prayers, the decree holder has also challenged the same order to the extent it upheld an objection of the judgment debtor.
The decree holder and the grand father of the judgment debtor among others, were partners in a firm.
