High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Ekbal v. Banaras State Bank - CIVIL REVISION No. 244 of 1990  RD-AH 1020 (16 January 2007)
(Court No. 28)
Civil Revision No. 244 of 1990
Ram Ekbal Versus Banaras State Bank Limited and others.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The revision is withdrawn/ treated to be withdrawn to this Court under section 24 C.P.C.
This revision is directed against order dated 26.3.1990 passed by Civil Judge, Ballia in Misc. Case No. 25 of 1987 Ram Ekbal Versus Banaras State Bank Limited (related with execution case No. 32 of 1986). Through the said order objections filed by the applicant, Judgment Debtor under section 47 C.P.C have been rejected.
The objection of the applicant was that by virtue of the decree which was sought to be executed it was essential for the decree holder Banaras State Bank that first it should proceed against the pledged goods hence execution application through which auction and sale of other property belonging to the judgment debtor for realization of the decreetal amount was sought was not maintainable. The Bank contended that whatever goods had been pledged had already been sold in execution case No. 40 of 1981. In the impugned order, it has been mentioned that similar objections were raised under section 47 C.P.C in execution case No. 40 of 1981 which were dismissed by a detailed order on 25.12.1983.
Another objection was filed by the applicant under section 47 C.P.C which was also dismissed on 23.2.1987. Against the said order revision No. 222 of 1987 was filed in this court which was disposed of on 21.9.1988.
Through the order dated 21.9.1988, it was permitted that judgment debtor could raise similar objections before the executing court within three weeks. In the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge, Ballia in accordance with the earlier order of the High Court dated 21.9.1988 compared the lists of pledged goods and the list prepared by the commission of the goods actually found by him. Learned Civil Judge held that there was no difference in the two lists.
I do not find least error in the impugned order. It appears that applicant is unnecessarily delaying the execution proceedings.
The revision is therefor dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.