Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Assuming that a decree may be transferred in part under the present Code, the next question is how is the part transferee to enforce his rights. He is much in the position of a joint decree holder under Order 21, Rule 15 but does not come within the words of that rule, as the decree has not been passed in favour of more p.ersons than one. Rule 15 provides that where the court allows one of several decree holders to execute, it shall make such provision as it may deem necessary for protecting the interests of persons who have not joined in the application. It must also, it seems to me, have jurisdiction to allow such other decree holders to intervene in a pending execution if it is not being properly conducted and must also have jurisdiction to allow a part transferee of the decree so to intervene, if, as alleged here, the executing decree holder is not duly prosecuting the execution. It would be a very unsatisfactory state of the law if a decree holder who has obtained valuable consideration for a part transfer of the decree were to be at liberty to abandon or delay the execution of the decree and defeat the right of the transferee.

10. Subsequent to the transfer the transferor decree holder in my opinion is in the same position as a joint decree holder who has been allowed to execute under Order 21, Rule 15. As I have already said, I think the other joint decree holders have a right to ask to be allowed to intervene at any stage of the execution if their interests are not adequately protected and I think that equally in the present case the appellant the part transferee should be allowed to intervene and even given the conduct of the execution proceedings if a proper case is made out. As the District Judge has not dealt with this aspect of the case I would allow the appeal, set aside the order and remand the case for disposal according to law in the ' light of the above observations. Costs to abide.

18. On the last point, the general provisions of Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the special provisions of Order 22, Rule 10 as to devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit appear to be ample authority for permitting' ttife assignee decree holder to continue the pending execution proceedings. Although Order 22 is headed Death, Marriage and Insolvency of parties, the use of the word assignment, in Rule 10 implies that transfers of interest inter vivo are included.

19. The observation though obiter in Midnapore Zemindari Co. Ltd., v. Naresh Narain Roy (1911) I.L.R. 39 Cal. 220 at p. 226 that the express exclusion by Rule 12 of the application of Rules 3, 4, and 8 of Order 22 from execution proceedings implies that the remaining rules are applicable even in execution commends itself to my mind. In the note to Rule 12 in Amir Ali's Civil Procedure Code there is an observation to the same effect. The observation in Siiarama-swami v. Lakshminarasimha (1917) I.L.R. 41 Mad. 510 that Rule 10 would not apply to devolution of interest after the termination of the suit was one made with strict reference to an appeal. The learned judges held Section 146 would cover even appeals. I have already dealt with the objection that the assignment to the appellant was not of the decree holder's entire interest. The result is that the appeal succeeds and the case must go back to the District Judge for passing orders under Order 21, Rule 15(2) and 16 Costs to abide.

27. If assignment of part of a decree is valid I do not see why the assignee should not apply to be allowed to execute the decree jointly with the decree-holder interested in the remainder on the analogy of a joint decree-holder applying for execution under Rule 15. The words of Section 146 which are very general do not prohibit this and so long as there is nothing in Order 21, Rules 15 and 16 cutting down the right, Section 151 will empower the court to grant relief by applying principles analogous to Rules 15 and 16 and give him relief even assuming that the rules would not in terms apply. Where rights are conferred by the sections of the Code and no provision is made for a particular set of facts I think courts ought to appiy the provisions of the rules which are nearest in point with such modifications as may be necessary and not. refuse relief on the ground that the legislature has not made provision for a particular case though within the generality of a section of the Code. The object of Section 151 is to give such power to courts and to prevent a failure of justice. In cases of transfer of part of a decree pending execution I think the proper course is to allow the transferee to be brought on record in execution proceedings and to treat further proceedings as if it was a joint petition by the transferor and transferee, Even if Rule 10, Order 22 does not apply to execution proceedings owing to the rule referring to pending suits I do not see why the same principle should not be applied. During the pendency of the suit a transferee of the whole or any part of the interest of the plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs is entitled to be brought on record and there is no reason why a transferee pending execution proceedings should not be given similar relief especially as the transferee can only work out his rights by execution and a denial of the right simply because an execution petition by his transferor was pending would lead to grave hardship in case the transferor is negligent or hostile. The present Code gives the Court no discretion to allow a joint decree holder to come on record and execute the decree. It will of course be open to the court to give the conduct of the proceedings to such of the petitioners as it might think fit after taking proper steps to secivre the interest of the others.