JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. Shorn of all superfluities, the woodcut profile of the facts, leading to the present revision applications, which involve common questions of law and facts, and, they are, therefore, proposed to be decided together are as follows :
2. The Patiala Flour Mills Company Ltd.. decree holder opposite party No. 1 filed Suit No. 83 of 1973 for the relief of specific performance of contract dated 18 April, 1966 by directing that the defendant-judgment debtor No. 1 U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., (for short 'UPSIDC'), which has come in revision before this Court, to transfer in favour of the plaintiff decree holder 80,000 equity shares of M/s. Modlpon Ltd. defendant judgment debtor No. 2 and to register the plaintiff decree holder as shareholder to the extent of the aforesaid shares in place of UPSIDC Ltd., and pay to the plaintiff decree holder all the dividends accruing on the aforesaid shares as also to allot the relevant bonus shares. Besides the aforesaid suit. two other Suit Nos. 278 of 1974 and 203 of 1975 were also instituted by the decree holder opposite party No. 1 for the same relief of specific performance in respect of 80,000 and 28,000 equity shares respectively. In this manner. three suits came to be filed for specific performance of the contract for transfer of 1,88.000 original shares, bonus shares and dividends accruing thereon. All the three suits were dismissed by the trial court, i.e., IIIrd Additional District Judge. Kanpur on 31.7.1981. The plaintiff opposite party No. 1 filed three appeal Nos. 492 of 1991. 489 of 1991 and 490 of 1991 before this Court. Alt these three appeals were allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court were set aside. The UPSIDC Judgment debtor revisionist preferred special leave petitions before the Supreme Court which were dismissed on 18.7.1994. A review application was also moved by UPSIDC before Supreme Court, which was faced with an order of rejection. Subsequently, the UPSIDC again preferred a revision application before this Court. It met with no better luck and the review application was dismissed by a detailed order of this Court dated 2.2.1996. In this manner, the decree passed by this Court in the three appeals, mentioned above, against the UPSIDC judgment debtor No. 1 and M/s. Modipon Ltd.. judgment debtor opposite party No. 2 became final. The decrees have been put to execution and now the trial court is seized of the matter on execution side.
3. During the pendency of the execution applications, the judgment debtor No. 1 UPSIDC filed objections under Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure which are pending disposal.
4. One of the objections raised by the judgment debtor revisionist before the executing Court is that the decree holder is not entitled for the transfer of the bonus shares and other dividend amounts, which accrued to the UPSIDC on the buying back share prior to the decreeing of the three suits and, therefore, the executing Court had no jurisdiction to direct M/s. Modipon judgment debtor No. 2 to deliver to the decree holder opposite party No. 1. the bonus shares, dividends and other dividends and certificates. The executability of the decree was also challenged by the UPSIDC. The executing Court by order dated 2.11.1996 negatived the objection raised by the UPSIDC judgment debtor about the maintainability of the execution application. UPSIDC came before this Court by filing Civil Revision No. 383 of 1996, which was dismissed on 13.3.1997. Thereafter, the executing court issued a direction to the UPSIDC judgment debtor revisionist to deliver 1,88,000 original shares and further directed M/s. Modipon Ltd., Judgment debtor No. 2 to deliver 2,82,000 bonus shares and draft for unpaid dividends lying with them and certificate for unpaid dividends deposited with the Registrar of Companies under Section 205A of the Companies Act. By the impugned order dated 20,12.1997, the executing Court has directed that the share certificates, dividends drafts and the details of the dividends deposited/submitted in the Court by M/s. Modipon Ltd., judgment debtor No. 2 be delivered to the decree holder on the condition that the decree holder shall file an affidavit undertaking that as and when the Court directs, the decree holder shall present the aforesaid share certificates, drafts and details in Court. By the same order, the case was fixed for argument on 17.1.1998. It Is against this order that the UPSIDC judgment debtor has come in revision before this Court in all the three execution applications arising out of the three suits and the appeals mentioned above.
5. Heard Sri Murlldhar learned counsel for the judgment debtor revisionist UPSIDC and Sri S. N. Varma for the plaintiff decree holder.
6. To begin with, it may be mentioned that the present revisions are not only not maintainable but ill-merited and by passage of time, have become infructuous and are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The impugned order dated 20-12.1997 has been passed only by way of Interim measure. The objection of the judgment debtor revisionist filed under Section 47, C.P.C. is still pending and has not yet been finally decided. Not only this, after passing of the order dated 20.12.1997, which has been challenged in this revision application, a subsequent order has been passed on 17.1.1998, a copy of which is Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed by the decree holder. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows :
".....I do not think it Will be in the interest of justice to deprive decree holder from getting the fruits of the decree granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India In his favour. I, therefore, order that the case be put up on 19.2.98 for hearing. The decree holder may be delivered demand draft for Rs. 3.18.413, statement account filed by JD No. 2 of the dividend deposited by him in the office of Registrar of Companies, Kanpur and Share Certificate for 2.82,000 shares. On decree holder producing transfer deed it be also supplied to him after getting the signature of the Court."
The Judgment debtor No. 2 M/s. Modipon Ltd., has complied with the said order of the executing court and the executing court has delivered the bonus share, draft for dividends and certificates in respect of unclaimed dividends deposited with the Registrar of Companies under General Revenue Account of Central Government under Section 205A of the Companies Act to the decree holder and thus, the order which was passed on 20.12.1997 followed by the order dated 17.1.1998 has been complied with and the decree has been partially satisfied. As a matter of fact, the revisionist UPSIDC has no concern with the delivery of the aforesaid bonus, share certificates etc., by M/s. Modipon Ltd.. judgment debtor opposite party No. 2 to the plaintiff decree holder opposite party No. 1. The impugned order dated 20.12.1997, therefore, stands exhausted and the present revision applications have become infructuous. Not only this, the Impugned order is purely of inter-locutory nature. A reading of the order itself would make it clear that it was hedged with the condition that as and when the Court would direct the decree holder, the share certificates, dividends, drafts, etc.. shall be produced by him before the Court. This order by itself indleates that the executing court has made an arrangement pending disposal of the objections under Section 47. C.P.C. on merits.
7. Since the objection raised by the Judgment-debtor revisionist Is yet to be decided on merits by the executing court, I refrain from making any observations touching the merits of the objection, lest the executing court may be influenced or prejudiced in the matter. Suffice it to say that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. The decree passed by this Court in the three suits, on appeals, have to be executed by the executing court.
8. The Impugned order passed by the executing court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity calling for interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, it appears that the judgment debtor-revisionist has adopted an attitude to obstruct the final execution of the decree by taking recourse to one objection or the other and unnecessarily carrying the matter from executing court to this Court. It would be proper If a final decision is rendered by the executing court on the objections of the judgment debtor-revisionist under Section 47, C.P.C.
9. All the three revision petitions are not maintainable. They are also devoid of any merits and substance. They are accordingly dismissed. The executing court is directed to decide the objections filed by the Judgment debtor revisionist under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure on merits with all expedition. The parties are directed to appear before the executing court on 18th May, 1998.