Ajit Singh Bains, J. - (1.) THIS petition by Mahant Ravi Dutt, objector, is directed against the order of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar, dated May 6, 1978, vide which he rejected his objections in the execution proceedings. The facts giving rise to this case are enumerated below.
(2.) MAHANT Rama Nand, respondent No. 1, filed a suit for declaration against Jiwan Gir Chela Had Gir (respondent No. 2) for declaration that he is the Mahant of Desnami Akhara Ganga Mandir, Durgiana Abadi and that the latter had no concern with the said Akhara, which was dismissed on February 14, 1961. In appeal to the High Court, however, he was successful as his suit was decreed on May 9, 1974. Thereafter, he filed execution proceedings whereby he prayed that judgment debtor Jiwan Gir Chela Hari Gir (respondent No. 2) be asked to render him the accounts which was resisted by Mahant Ravi Dutt Gir, Mahant of the Akhara Desnami Ganga Mandir, on the ground that the properties attached to the Akhara were not the personal property of any Mahant and that he (objector) was the duly appointed Mahant of the Akhara having been appointed as such by the Bhekh of Desnami Sadhus on April 6, 1978, in place of Mahant Rama Nand who was removed on March 31, 1976, by the Bhekh of Desnami Sadhus. It was contended that in these circumstances the rights, title and interests flowing from the said decree stood vested in him as Mahant and that Mahant Rama Nand had no right to have the decree executed. Law is well -settled in such cases. Order 21, Rule 16, reads as under: - - Where a decree or, if a decree has been passed jointly in favour two or more persons, the interest of any decree -holder in the decree is transferred by assignment in writing or by operation of law, the transferee may apply for execution of the decree to the Court which passed it, and the decree may be executed in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the application were made by such decree holder provided that, where the decree, or such interest as aforesaid, has been transferred by assignment, notice of such application shall be given to the transferor and the judgment -debtor, and the decree shall not be executed until the Court has heard their objections (if any) to its execution; Provided also that, where a decree for the payment of money against two or more persons has been transferred to one of them, it shall not be executed against others Explanation: - -Nothing in this rule shall affect the provisions of Section 146 and a transferee of rights in the property, which is the subject -matter of the suit, may apply for execution of the decree without a separate assignment of the decree as required by this rule. A perusal of the above provisions shows that an objection can be filed to the execution of the decree either where the decree is in favour of two or more persons or the interest of any decree holder in the decree is transferred by assignment or by operation of law, the transferee may apply for the execution of the decree to the Court which passed it. But in the instant case the petitioner is neither an assignee nor a transferee. Mahant Rama Nand, the decree -holder, still claims to be the Mahant of the Akhara in dispute. He has neither transferred nor assigned in writing to the present petitioner objector nor has the present petitioner become the Mahant of the Akhara by operation of law. His only claim is that he was installed as Mahant by the Bhekh of Desnami Sadhus in place of Mahant Rama Nand, decree holder. A civil suit filed by him against Mahant Rama Nand is stated to be pending before a Civil Court The petitioner objector did not disclose this fact while filing this petition. Moreover, it is a matter to be decided by the Civil Court. The execution of the decree in question cannot be refused on the above allegation of the objector -petitioner and his objections have rightly been rejected by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, the petition is without merit which fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.;