SULOCHANA DEVI Vs. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7/1/2000 passed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Hamirpur in Execution Petition No. 15 of 1996 titled United Commercial Bank v. Pradhan Singh Parmar (deceased) through his legal representatives, thereby dismissing the objections of the petitioners against the attachment of salary of petitioner No.1 in execution of the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 96 of 1985 decided on 28/10/1989.

(2.) Brief facts are that the aforesaid execution petition, at the material time, was pending in the Court of the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Hamirpur. By the application for execution of decree, a decree dated 28/10/1989 for recovery of money is being sought to be executed against the present petitioners. On the objection raised by the petitioners, the executing Court vide order dated 18/9/1997 held that the loan amount. (borrowed by one Pradhan Singh, predecessor of the present petitioners ) could only be realised from the legal representatives of the deceased (the petitioners) if they inherited the property of the deceased (Pradhan Singh). It was further observed that the DH had failed to prove that the legal representatives of the deceased Pradhan Singh i.e. the petitioners have inherited the estate of the said deceased and, therefore, the objector could not be said to have inherited the property. However, the decree holder was given the liberty to realise the outstanding amount under the decree if it was proved that the petitioners had inherited the estate of the deceased and the objections were accordingly disposed of. It appears that earlier to the passing of the aforesaid orders, certain properties, moveable as well as immoveable, were ordered to be attached. When the amount could not be realised, the salary of petitioner No.1 has been ordered to be attached. The objections against the order regarding attachment of the salary of petitioner No.1 on the ground that she has not inherited any property of the deceased borrower Pradhan Singh, were filed which were dismissed by the Executing Court by the impugned order. Hence the present revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners but could not have the advantage of hearing anyone for the respondents for whom no appearance was put in despite service.