Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 733 (PNJ)

Official Liquidator v. Jindal Ice Factory

2000-07-13

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2000
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J. - This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Jagadhri dated 3.12.1980. M/s. Ammonia Ice Supplies Corporation was ordered to be wound up on 21.12.1962. A suit was instituted by this Company against M/s. Jindal Ice Company Yamuna Nagar and the ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff on 24.2.1966. The decree holder applied for transfer of the decree and for certificate of execution of the decree passed in his favour, under Order 21 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application was filed on 15.9.1977. Thereafter the application was allowed and execution was transferred to the District Judge and then to the Sub Judge 1st Class Jagadhri on 6.1.1979. In the execution the judgment debtor took up the objection that the execution application was barred by time. This objection was accepted by the learned executing Court resulting in the passing of the impugned order. 2. It must be noticed at the very outset that the decree was passed on 24.2.1966 and an application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed on 26.8.1978 which also was dismissed in default on 26.9.1978. When the orders of the Court were not complied with, the execution filed earlier was ordered to be transferred on 28.3.1978 and then as already noticed, to Sub Judge 1st Class, Jagadhri on 6.1.1979. 3. Admittedly, the decree was passed on 24.2.1966 and the application for transfer of the execution was filed on 15.9.1977 which obviously means that the execution was filed much earlier to the application for transfer and in any case within a period of 12 years. It was this execution petition which had been transferred by the orders of the competent Court dated 28.3.1978 and 6.1.1979. The conclusion of the learned executing Court that application is barred by time is primarily based on the fact that the execution application was filed for the first time on 6.1.1979. I am unable to see any proper reasoning for this conclusion nor there is anything on record to support this finding. It is not disputed before me that the execution was transferred firstly from the Courts at Delhi and then to the concerned execution Court at Jagadhri as per the dates afore-noticed. I am unable to see any proper reasoning for this conclusion nor there is anything on record to support this finding. It is not disputed before me that the execution was transferred firstly from the Courts at Delhi and then to the concerned execution Court at Jagadhri as per the dates afore-noticed. It is apparent that the execution petition filed earlier was subsequently transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction for execution. 4. In this view of the matter the fact noticed by the Court that execution filed for the first time on 6.1.1979 would be barred by time, cannot be sustained. 5. Resultantly, this revision is accepted. The impugned order is set aside and the learned executing Court is directed to proceed with the execution proceedings in accordance with law and conclude the execution within one year from the date of the receipt of file as it relates to the execution of a decree passed on 24.2.1966. Revision allowed.