GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *C.R.P. No.1904 of 2016* S. Suriyaprakash vs. M. George Rajkumar & Anr. Dated: 22.06.2021 *Hon’ble Justice R.N. Manjula* allowed the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order of arrest of the

*GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*

*C.R.P. No.1904 of 2016*
S. Suriyaprakash vs. M. George Rajkumar & Anr.
Dated: 22.06.2021

*Hon’ble Justice R.N. Manjula* allowed the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order of arrest of the Executing Court in the matter of *“Whether decree in a suit can be enforced against a third party who falls within the judgement debtor’s ‘family members, servants, agents and men’”* and further held the following:

i) The defendant against whom the decree is passed always has two options. Either to accept the decree or to challenge it on appeal. In case it is an ex parte decree, the defendant can either accept the decree or take steps to set aside the same and contest the suit. In the event of accepting the decree or the decree became unchallengeable due to its finality, the defendant has no other option except to obey the decree. Therefore, the opportunity to obey the decree is always available to the defendant if he has the knowledge about the decree and he has the will to abide by it.

ii) In the event of the judgement debtor’s family members, servants, agents and men caused disturbance to the decree holder, unless the judgement debtor is added as a party and a notice is sent to him, it cannot be known whether the alleged disturbance was actually unleashed by the judgement debtor through the 3rd party or whether the 3rd party has a different claim. The 3rd party may only disturb the decree holder if he has a different claim on the subject matter. In these circumstances, the decree holder would get a new cause of action against such 3rd party and ought to implead him in a fresh suit.

iii) No order for arrest can be passed against the 3rd party (petitioner) who is not a party to the suit by his name. This finding is based on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in *Yashpal Singh Vs. VII Addl. District Judge* [(1992) 2 SCC 504] and by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in *Kodia Gounder Vs. Velandi Goundar* [1995 AIR (Mad) 281], wherein it was held that Order 21 Rule 32 cannot be brought against a person who is not a party (eo nominee) to the original suit. Therefore, for the above reasons, the execution petition was set aside.