JUDGEMENT
M.P.Chandrakantharaj, J. -
(1.) The short question which falls for
determination in this petition is ; whether
the executing Court may go behind the
order made in I.A. No. III by which certain sum was required to be paid by
defendants 1 to 10 to the plaintiff. The
suit was for partition and separate possession. Preliminary decree has been passed.
In the preliminary decree no provision is
made for mesne profits. In fact it has
been specifically disallowed, obviously, in
view of the maintenance order pendente
lite. The preliminary decree is under
appeal. In any event that question will
be decided in the Regular First Appeal
pending in this Court. So far as the
executing Court is concerned, two objections were taken by the 3rd judgment
debtor. They were : i) that the order
made in I A No. III had merged in the
preliminary decree and therefore by denying mesne profits it must be held that the
order made on I.A. No. III had merged in
the final order directing drawing up of
preliminary decree ; ii) that all the defendants are liable and only defendant-3
cannot be made to pay the amount as
directed in I.A. No. III.
(2.) The first contention need not
detain me long. Even though direction
was made to pay maintenance on an
application made by the plaintiff, as between the parties to the suit, the issue in
I.A. No. III was concluded and assumed
a formal determination in regard to the
question of right to maintenance during
the pedency of the suit. Therefore, it
has the force of a money decree which
may be executed when the decree is not
satisfied. The trial Court had therefore
correctly come to the conclusion that it is
not an order which is not executable.
(3.) The second point raised in this
Court should also be rejected. The order
made on I.A. No. III is directed against
all the defendants. Therefore, liability is
joint and several. It is open to the decree
holder to sue one or all of them. Even
in that regard the executing Court has
reached the correct conclusion. The
order does not call for interference.
Revision is rejected.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.