Parveen Kumar vs Krishna Devi and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 2256 and 2381 of 2013 both titled ""Parveen Kumar v. Krishna Devi

and others"", as they arise out of the same order passed by learned executing court. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from Civil

Revision No. 2256 of 2013.

The instant revision petition has been filed impugning the order dated 28.1.2013 passed by learned executing court, whereby the application u/s

51 read with Order 21 Rule 30 CPC, moved by the petitioner/decree-holder, has been dismissed.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner is the decree-holder and L.Rs. of Bhagwat Sarup - defendant were

party before the trial court before passing the decree and thus they are JDs. Admittedly, Bhagwat Sarup died during the pendency of suit. The

application u/s 51 read with Order 21 Rule 30 CPC was filed for detention of the legal representatives of Bhagwat Sarup, who were impleaded as

party during the pendency of the civil suit. Learned counsel contended that since they were party before the trial court, they are judgment-debtors

and can be imprisoned.

I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Section 52 of the CPC reads as under:--

Enforcement of decree against legal representatives. -

(1) Where a decree is passed against a party as the legal representative of a deceased person, and the decree is for the payment of money Out of

the property of the deceased, it may be executed by the attachment and sale of any such property.

(2) Where no such property remains in the possession of the judgment-debtor and he fails to satisfy the Court that he has duly applied such

property of the deceased as is proved to have come into his possession, the decree may be executed against the judgment-debtor to the extent of

the property in respect of which he has failed so to satisfy the Court in the same manner as if the decree had been against him personally.

From the perusal of Section 52 CPC it is clear that respondents are not the borrowers. They are only legal representatives of the borrower

against whom the decree would have been passed if he would have been alive. In view of Section 52 CPC, recovery can be effected from the

estate only and the L.Rs. cannot be sent behind bars nor civil imprisonment can be awarded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further brought to my notice subsequent order dated 21.2.2013 passed by learned executing court which

indicates that the property of deceased-Bhagwat Sarup has come into the hands of the respondents and the same has not been sold in spite of

attachment prior to passing of the decree.

In view of Section 52 CPC it is clear that property which has been Inherited by L.Rs. can be sold for satisfaction of the decree.

In view of this, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed. However, petitioner will be at liberty to proceed in

accordance with law against the order dated 21.2.2013.