District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,
Jehanabad
Execution Case No. 20 of 2008
(Arising out of Complaint case no. 105 of 2007)
ORDER
31.01. 2023
PREM RANJAN MISHRA, PRESIDENT
Attendance on behalf of the complainant decree holder Sunil Kumar Singh and the then Judgment debtor District Agriculture officer, Jahanabad filed.
Heard learned Advocate Sri Umesh Chandra Sinha Decree holder in person for the complainant -Decree holder and learned Advocate sri Anil Kumar Mishra for the Judgment debtor on the opposite party's petition dated 10.09.2018 and that's rejoinder dated 11.03. 2019 filed on behalf of the opposite party Judgment debtor District Agriculture officer, Jahanabad.
Through the petition it has been submitted that the Judgment and order dtd. 09.04.2008 passed in complaint case 105 of 2007 is not binding upon the opposite party i.e. District Agriculture officer, since-
1. According to the complainant himself, seeds were supplied to him in the year 2006 by the
then Block Agriculture officer, Jahanabad,
2. Post of District Agriculture officer was created vide notification dtd.19.12.2008 and thereafter first District Agriculture officer was posted in Jahanabad vide notification dtd. 22.06. 2019, and
3. The complaint case was filed on 17.10.2007, against the District Agriculture officer, Jahanabad, when the post of District Agriculture officer was not created even for Jahanabad.
4. An individual posted on a particular post has no personnel obligation or liability for any act done in official capacity.
On the other hand, the applicant has filed a brief rejoinder to the above said O.P.'s petition and has opposed the prayer of the opposite party on the grounds that the Block Agriculture officer is not the sole authority to distribute the seeds rather on the instruction of the senior officer seeds were distributed. The applicant do not claim any individual agriculture officer but on the agriculture Department. The forum after thoroughly going through the facts of the case and admission of the facts by the opposite party, passed the said order/decree.
Perused the record. Applicant -Decree holder has not denied that the seeds were distributed by the Block agriculture officer, Jahanabad against whom he had valid cause of action for filing this complaint, was not made party in the complaint case rather the District Agriculture officer was made party against whom , the complainant had no valid cause of action. As such, the very complaint filed before this forum was suffering from the defect of non-joinder of necessary party, whose consequence must have led to dismissal of the complaint [Order 1 Rule 9 read with Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C] as in absence of the Block Agriculture Officer, Jahanabad as necessary party in the complaint the then forum could not have effectually and completely adjudicated upon and settle all the questions involved in the dispute.
Simultaneously on the date of filing of the complaint (i.e. 17.10 2007) as well as the even on the date of the decree/ Order (i.e. 09.04.2008) neither the post of District Agriculture officer was created nor any one had joined in that capacity. As such, the District Agriculture officer, Jahanabad made opposite party, was quite a non-existent and imaginary one, leading the decree as passed against a non-existent and imaginary person and hence, un-executable one.
Further constraint before this forum is that as per the settled position of law for execution of a decree/ order under order 21 C.P.C is that an executing court can not go behind the decree. Hence, this court can not enter in the process of correction of the party in the complaint or the consequent decree.
In view of the above said facts and the circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, Opposite party's petition dtd. 10.09. 2018 is allowed and the execution case is dismissed finding the decree as un-executable.
