Punchanun Bundopadhya, Minor By His ... vs Rabia Bibi And Ors. on 18 June, 1890
572: 3 P. L. T. 613) were that a decree obtained against Mr. Stephen in 1909 was, after his death, being executed against his legal representatives, including, among others his widow Mrs. Margaret Anne Stephen, and she claimed the property, which was being proceeded against, as belonging to her personally Following Punchanun Bundopadhya v. Rabia Bibi, 17 Cal. 711 (F. B.), it was held that the objection was within the meaning of Section 47, Civil P. C. Mr. De has contended that the case is distinguishable from the present one on two grounds, namely, that, in this case, the decree was obtained against opposite party No. 1 and she was not merely brought in at the execution stage, and, secondly, that her claim to the property was put forward during the pendency of suit before there was any question of execution. Section 47, Civil P. C. how ever, relates to questions arising between "the parties to the suit ..... or their representatives". I do not think, therefore, that it can make any difference that the objection in question is filed by a person who is the judgment-debtor and not by one, who, is the judgment-debtor, having been impleaded in the suit as the legal representative of the executant of the handnote, and not by a person, who, after the decree was obtained against the executant of the handnote, was substituted as his legal representative in the course of the execution.