R.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.10.1982 passed 1st Civil Judge, Kanpur in Misc. Case No. 107 of 1978 against the judgment and order dated 4.9.1976 passed by 1st Civil Judge, Kanpur in Original Suit No. 300 of 1974. In this revision, the order has been assailed by the revisionist on the grounds that the trial Court committed grave error while allowing the objects of the defendant/opposite-parties that the decree in Original Suit No. 300 of 1974 is not enforceable against the defendant No. 8. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the executing court cannot go behind the decree passed by the trial Court.
(2.) I would like to quote the operative order of the judgment of the trial court dated 4.9.1976 which runs as under : "The suit is decreed with costs and 6% per annum pendente lite and future interest on Rs. 16,000/- against defendants 1 to 7. The decree shall be enforceable against defendant Nos. 3 to 7 only to the extent of their shares in the joint family property. The decree is ex parte against the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8." The learned Judge while deciding issue No. 12, held as regards the joinder of defendant No. 8, that it is a trust created by defendant No. 2 and his wife to justify the apprehension of the plaintiff that the trust is fake and the property continues to belong to the joint family. There is, therefore, no misjoinder of defendant No. 8. The issue is answered in negative.
(3.) The learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that the execution court should not have gone behind the decree while interpreting that it is unenforceable against defendant No. 8 while allowing the objection under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.;