Kishna vs M/s. Sohanlal Dali Chand

Nigam, J.C.

M/s. Sohanlal Dali Chand of Beawar filed execution application No. 333 of 1952 in execution of decree No. 51 of 1952 seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 60/14/-. In execution of this decree, a warrant for attachment of moveable property was issued and certain properties were attached from the shop of the judgment-debtor Kishna. On 3-2-1953, by consent of parties, the execution court directed that if the judgment-debtor paid Rs. 45/- in full satisfaction of the decree, the property attached was to be released. This amount was duly deposited on 11-2-1953. The execution application was struck off in full satisfaction and it was directed that the attached property be released and delivered back to the judgment-debtor.

Then the trouble started. The judgment-debtor alleged that some of the properties mentioned in list B prepared by the Nazir had been changed. He took delivery of the articles mentioned in list A, but refused to take delivery of articles mentioned in list B. On 6-3-1953 an application was presented under S. 151, Civil P.C., by the judgment-debtor Kishenlal alleging that the decree-holder had changed the articles and praying that the court be pleased to order the decree-holder to return the remaining articles to the judgment-debtor-applicant. Another application under S. 476, Criminal P.C., was also presented the same day.

On 16-4-1953, the learned Subordinate Judge, Beawar, in whose court the execution proceedings were being taken, held that on the evidence before him, he was satisfied that there was no substitution of articles. He dismissed the application. He also, in view of the decision of the application under S. 151, Civil P.C., dismissed the application under S. 476, Criminal P.C.

Against that order Kishna, judgment-debtor has come up in revision. Though the revision challenged both the dismissal of the application under S. 151, Civil P.C. and the application under S. 476, Criminal P.C., the arguments have been confined to the application under S. 151, Civil P.C. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

At the time of the admission of this revision, the learned counsel for the applicant had urged that the matter was decided under the provisions of S. 47, Civil P.C. Today the learned counsel has relied on -- AIR 1925 258 (Nagpur) ; --- Mt. Purnama Devi Vs. Ram Prasad and Another, ; -- L. Madho Lal and Another Vs. L. Duli Chand and Another, and -- '' 1942 AMLJ 57 (D); In my opinion, none of these rulings will help the learned counsel.

In -- AIR 1925 258 (Nagpur) it was held that the security given by a Supratdar in execution could be realized by issue of a summary process in execution against him even if the Supratdar was not a party to the execution proceedings. In the case before me the Supratdar has repeatedly offered to return the property and the question is whether there has been a substitution of the properties.

In -- Mt. Purnama Devi Vs. Ram Prasad and Another, it was held that a suit by a decree-holder against a supratdar for loss suffered by him due to Supratdar misappropriating the property was barred by S. 47-The facts of the present case appear to be different inasmuch as the decree has been fully satisfied.

In -- L. Madho Lal and Another Vs. L. Duli Chand and Another, it was held that S. 47 applied to proceedings taken after satisfaction of the decree also. In this particular case, however, there was an application that the order for the satisfaction of the decree be reviewed. No such proceedings are being taken in the present case.

In -- '' 1942 AMLJ 57 (D)'', it was only held that the Supratdar was not at liberty to intermeddle in any way with the property. He was bound to make over the property to the court when so directed by it. In the present case, it has been held by the learned Subordinate Judge that the Supratdar has made over those properties. In the circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that Section 47 will not apply to the facts of the present case as the decree has already been fully executed and satisfied.

If the application is considered under S. 151, Civil P.C., no revision will lie.

Accordingly I see no force in this revision application and dismiss it with costs.