Case: Government Of Orissa Vs. M/S. Ashok Transport Agency

Admittedly, the Ordinance taking over the assets of the Charge Chrome Division of the Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. was promulgated on 24th September, 1991 and the suit filed by the respondents was decreed against the Charge Chrome Division on 12th November 1991 without bringing the State Government on record as party defendant.4. Thereafter, the judgment creditor filed an Execution Application on 24th October, 1994 for recovering the amount decreed from the Government of Orissa as well as other respondents. The State Government contended that the decree is not executable against it as it was not brought on record and there is no decree against it. The trial court rejected the objection raised by the appellant on the basis of decision rendered by this Court in State of Orissa vs. Klockner and Company and Others [(1996) 8 SCC 377) . Against that judgment and order, the appellant preferred C.R. No. 117 of 1998 before the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. The Orissa Mining Corporation Limited also filed C.R. No. 64 of 1998 against the said order by contending that decree against it is not executable. The High Court allowed the revision filed by the Orissa Mining Corporation on the ground that Execution Application against it would not survive as no liability accrued against it. However the revision filed by the State Government was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
Therefore, whether decree is executable against the appellant is required to be decided in the execution application and not by the separate suit. Sections 50 and 52 deal with cases when the decree could be executed against legalis true that after passing of the decree, it was for the defendant or the assignee to take appropriate steps for setting aside the decree but that would not mean that prior to the decree assignee or the person on whom the property has devolved has toIn view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order passed by the High Court in CR No. 117 of 1998 confirming the order passed by the trial Court in Execution Case No. 50 of 1994 rejecting the objection application filed by the appellant, is set aside. It is held that the decree passed against the original defendant Charge Chrome Division is not binding to the appellant and, therefore, it is inexecutable against the appellant.