Chhangani, J. - (1.)This is an appeal by Amarsingh under Section 96 read with Section 47, C. P. C., against the order of the District Judge, Jaipur City, dismissing his objection in an execution case.
(2.)The relevant facts are briefly as follows : Seth Anantram Vijailal, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent obtained a decree for Rs. 19,080/7/3 against Thakur Kishansingh of Patoda from the Dewani Adalat of the former Jaipur State on 5th November, 1948. After the death of the original judgment-debtor Kishansingh, one Jagatsingh, Tasirdar of Patoda was substituted as the legal representative of the original judgment-debtor on 10th of August, 1927. As the judgment-debtor was a Jagirdar, proceedings for satisfaction of the decree had to foe taken in the Bachat department of the former Jaipur State. After the promulgation of the Code of Civil Procedure in the integrated State of Rajasthan, the proceedings in the Bachat department came to an end on 25th of January, 1950. Gulabchand respondent, the successor of the decree-holder, thereafter on 26th of May, 1951 took out execution proceedings against the appellant Amarsingh treating him as the legal representative of the judgment-debtor. A notice under Order 21 Rule 22 C. P. C. was served upon the appellant requiring him to show cause why the execution of the decree should not be directed against him. Amarsingh appeared in the execution court through one Sri Niranjan Dutt, Advocate and filed objections on 17th February, 1954. The only objection raised on his behalf was that the application for execution was timebarred. The objection of the appellant was, however, dismissed in default on 10-7-1954 and subsequently on 12th of September, 1954, the execution application itself was dismissed on account of default on the part of the decree- holder to deposit postal expenses.
(3.)A second execution petition was filed by the . decree-holder on 4th of April, 1955. In this execution case, the appellant raised an objection that as he was not the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor, the execution should not be directed against him. The objection was opposed by the decree- holder, amongst others, on the ground that the appellant was debarred from raising this objection on the principle of constructive res judicata. The execution court dismissed the objections holding that the appellant was so debarred from raising the objection. Hence, this appeal by Amarsingh.
;