1 N.1074.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NO. 1074 OF 2010 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 474 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 791 OF 2003 Smita Mehta. ... Plaintiff. V/s. M/s. Monitex Dye Prints & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. R.D. Soni and Mr. Kasle i/b. Sunil Kadam for the Plaintiff. Mr. Rajiv Narula and Mr. Pramod Bhosale i/b. J. Narula & Associates for Defendant 5. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 01st MARCH 2011. P.C. :- Two affidavits of service are on record. Notice is directed against Defendant Nos.1,2a,2b,2c,3,4 and 5. Defendant Nos. 2a, 2b and 2c are brought on record as heirs of Mr. Kapur, Original Defendant No.2. Defendant Nos.2b and 2c are already on record in their personal capacity as Defendant Nos.3 and 4. Hence, all the Defendants are served. Learned Counsel Mr. Narula has filed affidavit in reply on behalf of Defendant No.5. 2 N.1074.10.sxw 2. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides. It is the contention of Defendant No.5 that Defendant No.5 had retired from the firm in the year 1989. She was not the partner of Defendant No.1 at the time when the decree is passed. It is to be noted that Defendant No.5 was joined as a Defendant in the Suit and the decree is already passed against Defendant No.5. Learned Counsel Mr. Narula stated that steps are being taken by Defendant No.5 to have the decree of 2005 set aside. 3. After having heard learned Counsels on both sides, I have hold that Defendant No.4 being a Defendant against whom the decree is passed, the Plaintiffs will have right to execute the decree even against Defendant No.5. If the decree is set aside in future, naturally, the Plaintiffs would not be able to execute the decree against Defendant No.5. 4. Hence, following order is passed to dispose of this Notice :- (i) Notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of C.P.C. is made absolute as against all the Defendants. There shall be no order as to costs. (ii) Execution to proceed against all the Defendants. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)