IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1201 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- DALAL BHAMIN RAJNIKANT Versus AMARSINHJI MILLS LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Civil Revision Application No. 1201 of 1997 MS MAMTA R VYAS for Petitioner No. 1-3 MR AS VAKIL for Respondent No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Respondent No. 2-13 UNSERVED-REFUSED (N) for Respondent No. 3-13 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR Date of decision: 10/02/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT By filing this Revision Application, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Executing Court below Exh.121 in Execution Petition No.845/88. The aforesaid application was preferred by the judgement debtor No.(2) (C) (2) (b) 2 (c) (c) and 2 (c) (D). It seems that the present petitioners were impleaded as the heirs of the original judgement debtor. The execution application was preferred by the respondent No.1-company for executing the decree passed in their favour. During the pendency of the execution petition, question arose whether the property in question, which is sought to be sold in execution for the purpose of satisfying the dues of the decree holder, belonging exclusively to the judgement debtor. The executing Court found that the said question is required to be decided by allowing the application to lead oral as well as documentary evidence in this behalf. It seems that before the executing Court, one Mr.Dhanrajmal Hajarimal Ranavat was examined by the decree holder and he was also cross-examined by the original judgement debtor. Subsequently, the present petitioners, who were brought on record as the heirs of the original debtor submitted an application at Exh.121 requesting the Court that they may be permitted to cross-examine the concerned witnesses. The said application was rejected by the Executing Court, which order is under challenge in this revision application. 2) It is required to be noted that by the impugned order, the executing Court has not permitted to cross-examine concerned witnesses. The said execution application is still at large and pending for final disposal. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is purely in the nature of interlocutory order, which is passed in a pending execution petition. By the impugned order, execution proceedings are not terminated in any manner. In that view of the matter, revision preferred against the an interlocutory order is not maintainable in view of the amendment in Section 115 of C.P.C. Under these circumstances, without examining the merits of the matter, this revision is rejected as the same is not maintainable. It will be open for the petitioners to file a substantive petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, if they so desires. 3) Accordingly this Revision Application is disposed of as the same is not maintainable. Interim relief stands vacated. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (P.B.Majmudar,J.) /malek