Objection to executability of execution of decree by person who is not party to suit is not permissible

The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 29.11.2003 passed by the trial Court rejecting an Application Exhibit 31 an objection to the executability of the decree raised 

in Regular Darkhast No.31 of 2003. The executing Court has 

observed in para 3 that the Petitioner is not a party to the Suit 

in which the decree in question was passed and therefore, she cannot be termed as a representative of either of the parties. It has also been held that if the Petitioner wanted to claim any 

matrimonial right then such a right can be proved by way of filing a separate Suit. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 2010 to agitate her matrimonial right.1

Bombay High Court

Diksha Rajkumar Hinduja vs C on 6 August, 2013

Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande

Citation;2013 (5) ALL M R 623

1. The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 29.11.2003 passed by the trial Court rejecting an Application Exhibit 31 an objection to the executability of the decree raised y

in Regular Darkhast No.31 of 2003. The executing Court has ba

observed in para 3 that the Petitioner is not a party to the Suit om

in which the decree in question was passed and therefore, she cannot be termed as a representative of either of the parties. It has also been held that if the Petitioner wanted to claim any B

matrimonial right then such a right can be proved by way of filing a separate Suit. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No.121 of 2010 to agitate her matrimonial right.

2. In view of this, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order impugned. Writ Petition is dismissed. 

Rule is discharged accordingly. No order as to costs. C

JUDGE

Print Page