JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.
1. Pleadings are complete and the counsels for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed of under the rules of the court.
2. Heard counsel for the parties.
3. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 23.2.2000 and 22.5.2000 by which his objection under Section 47 C.P.C. has been rejected by the executing court and the revision has also been dismissed.
4. It appears that the plaintiff respondent filed original suit No. 672 of 1998 under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. with the allegations that the defendants be restrained from publishing books with the trade name 'Bal Bharti' with any other or similarly described similar names. The suit was decreed and the decree was also upheld in Special Leave Petition No. 14217 of 1999 vide order and judgment dated 4.10.1999 and has become final. The plaintiff respondent filed an execution application No. 25 of 1999 against the petitioner as according to them the petitioner was publishing books, which was similarly titled as that of the plaintiffs. The petitioner filed his objection stating that since he was not a party in the aforesaid suit, the decree is not binding upon him. The objection was rejected by the trial court and the same has been upheld in revision.
5. Firstly, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since he was not a party to the suit, the decree was not binding upon him. In my view, since the suit was filed under Order 1 Rule 8 thus, the decree would bind all persons including the petitioner, therefore, this argument cannot be accepted. In fact in identical circumstances, two learned Single Judges of this court in the case of Prakashak Gurdev Computers v. State (writ petition No. 2657 of 2000 decided on 19.1.2000) and Prakashak, Madhu Prakashan v. District Judge (writ petition No. 20466 of 2001 decided on 24.5.2001) have taken identical view. From the later judgment it appears that the petitioner had also filed the aforesaid writ petition, which has been dismissed but this fact has not been disclosed in the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in fact his books are not similar to those published by the plaintiff respondent and this argument has not been considered by the revisional court. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner had advanced the aforesaid argument before any of the courts below. Nevertheless, if, that is so, the execution court itself will examine the issue.
7. No other point has been urged.
8. For the reasons given hereinabove, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs.