???????????

INTERPLEADER SUIT
o Inter pleader suit has some peculiarity with regard to the
contest on it's subject matter .
o It is a suit where there must be more than one
defendants &
o the defendants contest against each other for the
disputed property.
o In an inter pleader suit the plaintiff holds the movable or
immovable property
o and files the suit only to ascertain as to whom he should
deliver the property because the  defendants claim the
property against each other or they interplead against
each other.
 ….
 In every inter pleader suit , there must be some debt or
sum of money or other property in dispute between the
defendants only .
 And the plaintiff must be a person who claims no interest
therein other than for charges or costs and who is ready
to pay or deliver the property to such of the defendants
as may be decided by the court to be entitled to the
property.
 Section 88 ……
• …… lays down that where two or more persons claim
adversely to one another,
• the same debt ,
• sum of money or other property ,
• movable or immovable , from another person ,
• who claims no interest therein other than for charges or
costs and who is ready to pay or deliver it to the rightful
claimant ,
 …..
• such other person may institute a suit of inter
pleader against all the claimants
• for the purpose of obtaining a decision as to the
person to whom the payment or delivery shall be
made and of obtaining indemnity for himself .
 Cont….
• The real dispute , in an inter pleader suit , must
be only in between the defendants .
• The plaintiff’s position is impartial in such type of
suit .
• In the inter pleader suit the defendants claim
adversely to each other,
• plaintiff does not admit title of even one of the
defendants but is willing to pay or deliver the
property .
 Cont….
• According to Order 35 , Rule 1 ……..the plaint shall state:-
• 1) That the plaintiff claims no interest in the subject matter
in dispute
• other than the charges or costs .
• For example , when consigned goods are claimed by
several parties , the railway can bring an inter pleader suit
claiming only a lien for freight , demurrage etc. ;

• 2) the claims made by the defendants severally , and

• 3) that there is no collusion between the plaintiff and any
of the defendants .
THE END
EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS
 Introduction
• The term execution
• ........has not defined the expression execution
• .........Signifies the enforcement giving effect to
judgment of the court
• D.Hr enable to realize the fruits of the decree
• Sec. 36 to 74 of C.P.C –
• governing principles of execution of decree
(substantive law)
• order 21 – procedural provision
 Cont…

• The numerous rules of order 21 of the

code ......
• ........take care of different situations
• Providing effective remedies not only to
J.Drs & D.Hrs
• But also to claimant objectors, as the
case may be
 Cont…
• Who may Apply:-
1. Decree holder
2. If D.Hr died………. legal representatives
3. Representative of D.Hr
Order 21 -Rule 10 – 25
-Rule 105 – 106
Deals with execution application
All proceedings in execution commence with the
filing of an application for execution
 Cont…

Against whom:-
1. J.Dr (order - 21 R-15)
2. Legal rep. of J.Dr. (Sec. 50,52, 53)
3. Rep. of J.dr. (Sec. 146)
4. Surety of J.Dr ( Sec. 150)

E.P. may be filed before:-

1. The court which passed the decree
2. Transferred court.
 Before.....E.P

Service of notice Service of notice

Necessary........when Not necessary .....when

After 2 yrs.....from the date of

Within 2 years
decree

Against legal representative Against J.Dr only

Would cause unreasonable

Filed under 44-A
delay

Filed against receiver – surety

 Non-service....

• ……..of notice.....to J.Dr

• Subsequent proceedings will become void

• Rule 105 & 106......inserted by 1976

amendment
 Cont.….
•  fix a day for the hearing of the application.
• Where on the day fixed or on any other day to
which the hearing may be adjourned
• the applicant does not appear when the case is
called on for hearing, the Court may make
an order that the application be dismissed,
• Where the applicant appears and the opposite party
to whom the notice has been issued by the Court
does not appear, the Court may hear the application
ex parte and pass such order as it thinks fit.
 Limitation...

• Mandatory injunction decree......

• .......within 3 years
• Other decrees.....12 years
 Case-law

Ghan Shyam Das Gupta and another

Vs.
Anant Kumar Sinha and others
AIR 1991 SC 2251
 This appeal....

 .........is directed against the judgment of

Allahabad High Court,
 allowing the writ petition of the
respondents under Article 226 of the
Constitution,
 and directing that they shall not be
evicted from the premises in dispute
 in pursuance of an eviction decree passed by
the trail court
 main question.....

• ....... which arises for decision

• is whether in the facts and circumstances
of the case
• ……..the High Court was justified in
entertaining the writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution,
• and proceeding to issue the impugned
direction.
 Facts.....
• The appellants are the owners of the premises in
question
• ........one Dr. K.C. Sinha was a tenant.
• After his death his son Prabhas Kumar Sinha
continued in possession.
• The writ petitioners- respondents are the sons of
the brothers of Dr. K.C. Sinha,
• and according to their case they being members of
the joint Hindu Family along with Dr. K.C. Sinha
are tenants in their own right under the appellants.
 Cont...
• The case of the appellants is that

• they were subsequently inducted in the premises as

sub-tenants by Prabhas Kumar Sinha
• and did not have any independent right.
• The eviction suit in the small causes court was filed by
the appellants
• against Prabhas Kumar Sinha for his eviction, without
impleading the writ petitioners
 Cont…
• and the decree passed therein is under challenge
• by the judgment-debtor Prabhas Kumar Sinha in
revision before the High Court.
• In this background the respondents approached
the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution,
• claiming that they, not being parties in the eviction
case, are not bound by the decree.
 The High Court

• ......has held that since the claim of the writ

petitioners was not examined
• and decided in the suit and the decree was passed
against Prabhas Kumar Sinha only,
• they cannot be evicted from the premises unless a
decree is expressly passed against them.
• It has been observed that the appellants must
proceed to file a suit against the writ petitioners and
obtain a decree against them if they intend to eject
them.
 Supreme court
• ......the High Court has seriously erred in law in allowing the writ
petition
• by the impugned judgment.
• The decision on the disputed issue was dependent on the
consideration of the evidence to be led by the parties,
• and while exercising the writ jurisdiction the High Court was not
expected to go into that question.
• In the circumstances,
• the Court ought to have refused to dispose of the writ petition on
merits,
• leaving the writ petitioners to avail of the remedy before the civil
court.
 Cont......
• The remedy provided under Article 226 is not
intended to supersede the modes of obtaining relief
before a civil court or to deny defences legitimately
open in such actions.
• So far the question of executability of a decree is
concerned, the Civil Procedure Code contains
elaborate and exhaustive provisions for dealing with
it in all its aspects.
 Cont…..
• The numerous rules of order XXI of the Code take care of
different situations,
• providing effective remedies not only to judgment-debtors
and decree-holders but also to claimant objectors as the case
may be.
• In an exceptional case, where provisions are rendered
incapable of giving relief to an aggrieved party in adequate
measure and appropriate time,
• the answer is a regular suit in the civil court.
 Cont….
• The remedy under the Civil Procedure Code is
of superior judicial quality than what is generally
available under other statutes, and the Judge
being entrusted exclusively with administration
of justice, is expected to do better.
• It will be, therefore, difficult to find a case where
interference in writ jurisdiction for granting relief
to a judgment-debtor or a claimant objector can
be justified.
 Cont….
• The rules 97 to 106 of order XXI….
• envisage questions as in the present appeal to be
determined on the basis of evidence to be led by the
parties and after the 1976 Amendment,
• the decision has been made appealable like a decree.
• The High Court, in the present case,
• therefore, ought not to have embarked upon a decision
of the writ petition on merits,
• and should have refused to exercise its special
jurisdiction on the ground of alternative remedy before
the civil court.
 Finally.....
• .......accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment
• and dismiss the writ petition of the respondents
• The appeal is allowed with costs, assessed at Rs.2,000.
MODES OF
EXECUTION
 Modes of execution

 .........All questions arising between the parties to

the suit in the decree
 ...........shall be determined by the court ......
 .....while executing the decree
 .......and not by separate suit.
 Modes of
execution

Delivery of Attachment &

property Sale of property

Arrest &
Partition
Detention
 Delivery of
property

Movable…..
Immovable…
Sec.51(a) Rule
Rule 35& 36
31
 Application of this rule……

 Property must be in possession of J.dr

 If it is in 3rd party possession….
 These provisions……do not apply…..
 ……property cannot be attached
 Specific movable property-do not include
money
 A decree for money cannot be executed u/r-31
 ……… immovable property

• Rule 31 & 36 Provides…..

• mode of execution of decree
• …….for possession of immovable property
• ……..by removing J.Dr… possession must be
delivered to D.Hr
• Court will put the D.Hr in possession actual
possession
 Attachment of property

• Sec.60 to 64, Rules 41 to 57 of order.21….deals

with….
• Subject of attachment of property
• Private alienation of property…..after attachment
…..void
 ????????

• Is all properties are liable to attachment?

 No…….
Liable… Exempt……

• Necessary wearing
• All saleable property… apparel
• Cooking vessels
• Where J.Dr has disposing • Bedding
power ….. • Tools of artisans
• Pension gratituities
• For his benefit…. • Compulsory deposit
 Garnishee
• Garnishee means….
• J.Dr’s debtor…..
• Who is liable to pay a debt
• Deliver any movable property
• Garnishee proceeding……..is a
proceeding by which the D.Hr ….
• ….seeks to money or property of J.Dr in
the hands of a 3rd party
 Cont…

• Garnishee means a judgment-debtor's debtor.

• He is a person who is liable to pay a debt to a
judgment-debtor
• or to deliver any movable property to him.
• A garnishee order is an order passed by a Court
ordering a garnishee
• …….not to pay money to the judgment-debtor
because the latter is indebted to the garnisher
EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS
 Arrest & Detention
• Where the decree ……payment of money….
• Injunction…..or specific performance of…
• Execution by detention in civil prison ….
• where the application….is made for arrest
• …..court shall instead of issuing warrant for
arrest…..
• Issue show cause notice……
• Recognizes rule of natural justice
 Who cannot be arrested…..

• A woman
• Judicial officers while exercising duties
• Parties, advocates, witnesses while
attending at court
• Members of legislative body
• J.dr if decree amount less than Rs.2000/-
 procedure
• J.dr ….may be arrested…at any time
….on any day of execution of decree
• After his arrest….
• …..must produce before court
• For the purpose of making arrest…..
• …..no dwelling house may be entered
before & after sunset
 Cont…

• Period of detention…..
• Decree amount more than 5000/-…..up to
three months
• More than 2000/-…..up to six weeks
 Release of ….

• On payment of amount……
• Full satisfaction of decree….
• On the request of D.Hr
• If D.hr fails to pay subsistence allowance
• On the grounds of illness
 Case-law

Jolly George Varghese

Vs
Bank of Cochin

AIR 1980 SC 470

 Facts…
• The appellants ….. judgment-debtors
• respondent-bank ……decree-holder.
• In execution of the decree..
• …… a warrant for arrest and detention in civil
prison
• was issued to the appellants u/ s. 51 and order
21, rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
 Cont…..
• On an earlier occasion
• there had been a similar warrant for arrest in
execution of the same decree.
• The decree-holders also……. proceeded against
the properties of the judgment-debtors
• and in consequence all their immovable
properties had been attached for the purpose of
sale in discharge of the decree- debts.
 Cont…..

• A receiver was appointed by the

execution court
• to manage the properties under
attachment.
• Even so, the court had issued a warrant
for the arrest of the judgment-debtors
• because on an earlier occasion a similar
warrant had already been issued
 Cont…..

• without any investigation

• as regards the current ability of the judgment-
debtors
• to clear off the debts or their mala-fide refusal, if
any, to discharge the debts.
 Question…

• whether under such circumstances the

personal freedom of the judgment-debtors
can be held in ransom until repayment of the
debt,
• and if s. 51 read with O. 21, r. 37, C.P.C. does
warrant such a step, whether the provision of
law is constitutional tested on the touchstone
of fair procedure under Art. 21
 Cont….
• S.. 51 C.P.C. follows that quondom affluence
and current indigence
• without intervening dishonesty or bad faith in
liquidating his liability can be consistent,
• ……..then no detention is permissible under s.
51, C.P.C.
 Cont….
• Equally meaningful is the import of Art. 21 of the
Constitution in the context of imprisonment for non-
payment of debts.
• The high value of human dignity and the worth of the
human person enshrined in Art. 21, read with Arts. 14
and 19, obligates the State not to incarcerate except
under law which is fair, just and reasonable in its
procedural essence.
 Cont….
• But this is precisely the interpretation we
have put on the Proviso to s. 51 C.P.C.
and the lethal blow of Art. 21 cannot strike
down the provision, as now interpreted.
• The words which hurt are "or has had
since the date of the decree, the means to
pay the amount of the decree".
 Cont….
• This implies, superficially read, that if at
any time after the passing of an old decree
the judgment-debtor had come by some
resources and had not discharged the
decree,
• he could be detained in prison even
though at that later point of time he was
found to be penniless.
 Cont….
• The simple default to discharge is not
enough.
• There must be some element of bad faith
beyond mere indifference to pay,
• some deliberate disposition in the past or,
alternatively,
• current means to pay the decree or a
substantial part of it.
 Cont….
• The provision emphasises the need to
establish not mere omission to pay but an
attitude of refusal on demand verging on
dishonest disowning of the obligation
under the decree.
• Here considerations of the debtor's other
pressing needs and straitened
circumstances will play prominently.
 Cont…..
• The question may….
• squarely arise some day as to whether the
Proviso to s. 51 read with O. 21, r. 37 is in
excess of the Constitutional mandate in Art. 21
and bad in part.
• In the present case ……remitting the matter for
reconsideration,
 Cont…..
• to direct the executing court
• …..to re- adjudicate on the present means of the
debtors vis a vis the present pressures of their
indebtedness,
• or alternatively whether they have had the
ability to pay
• but have improperly evaded or postponed doing
so
• or otherwise dishonestly committed acts of bad
faith respecting their assets.
 Cont….
• and direct the executing court to decide de
novo the means of the judgment- debtors
to discharge the decree in the light of the
above interpretation.
• Appeal allowed.
 ??????????

• Whether Executing Court can go

beyond the decree?
Section 38 lays down…..
• a decree may be executed either by the Court
which passed it or by the Court to which it is
sent for execution.
• The executing Court has no power to entertain
any objection as to the validity of the decree or
as to the legality or correctness of the decree.
• …..although a decree may not be according to
law, ?????????????
 Cont..
• it is binding and conclusive as between the
parties to the suit,
• unless it is set aside in appeal or revision.
• It is for the same reason that, the Court
executing a decree cannot alter,
• vary or add to the terms of the decree
• even with the consent of the parties.
 V. Ramswami Vs T.N.V.Kailash Theyar
reported in AIR 1951 S.C,189 (192),

• it was observed that,

• ''the duty of an executing Court is to give effect to the
terms of the decree.
• It has no power to go beyond its terms.
• Though, it has power to interpret the decree,
• it cannot make a new decree for the parties under
the guise of interpretation ''.
 Claimant objectors….

 Whereas an objection to attachment or claim to

attach property if made by a third party,
 the objector may either proceed by an
application before the executing Court or
 he may bring a suit to establish his objection
 Cont….
• the concerned Court is required to frame
issue casting burden of proof on a
particular party.
• Objections or claims filed against
execution must not be disposed of without
granting an opportunity to lead evidence.
 Cont….
• In claim petition,
• the burden is on the claimant to prove that on the
date of attachment, he has some right, title or interest
or was in possession of property attached.
• If the claimant is succeeded in proving that fact,
• then burden is shifted on decree-holder
• to prove that the objector was not the owner or holds
any interest for judgment-debtor
 Case law

Brahmdeo Choudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad

Jaiswal

AIR 1997 SC 856

 ……..
• held that, it can not be said that the only remedy
available to the stranger to the decree for
possession who has resisted its execution,
• to have his claim adjudicated is the one under R.
99 of O.21 after he has lost possession to the
decree-holder and that he has no locus standi to
get adjudication of his claim prior to the actual
delivery of possession to the decree-holder in the
execution proceeding.
 Cont…..

• It is also held that it is easy to visualize that a

stranger to the decree who claims an independent
right, title, and interest in the decreetal property
• can offer his resistance before getting actually
dispossessed.
• He can equally agitate his grievance and claim for
adjudication of his independent right, title and interest
in the decreetal property even after losing possession
as per Order 21 Rule 99.
 …..

• Order 21 rule 97 deals with

• a stage which is prior to the actual execution
of the decree for possession
• wherein the grievance of the obstructionist can
adjudicated upon before actual delivery of
possession to the decree-holder
Stay of execution
 Order XXI Rule 26 ……
• ………executing Court may stay the execution
proceeding,
• the Court which passes the decree can stay the
proceeding on application of judgment-debtor
enabling him to file the appeal
• and to bring the stay to the execution proceeding.
 Cont..

• Where the suit is pending in any Court decree-holder

and judgment-debtor in such circumstances if the Court
is found the rights of parties are required to be
adjudicated by the Court where such suit is pending
and unless the rights are to be determined, the decree
cannot be executed in such circumstances, Court can
stay the execution proceeding.
• The appellate Court can also grant the stay to the
execution proceeding.