JUDGMENT 1. This application (Objections) has been moved by the Judgment Debtor against the Execution Petition filed by the petitioner for execution of order dated 30th March, 2006 passed in OMP No. 118/2006. 2. A Civil Suit being OMP No. 118/2006 was filed by the Judgment Debtor as plaintiff wherein Judgment Debtor had sought an injunction against the defendant (Decree Holder) restraining the Decree Holder from encashing the cheques worth Rs.41 crore alleging that these cheques were issued by the Judgment Debtor under duress and coercion. Nonetheless Judgment Debtor had offered to pay a sum of Rs.7 crore by way of Demand Draft or Pay Order to the Decree Holder in lieu of these two cheques. This Court after considering the stand of parties at length directed Judgment Debtor to deposit/pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.15 crore by way of Pay Order within four weeks from the date of order and also gave liberty to the Decree Holder to sell the stock in auction. The Court also observed that the Decree Holder will not get the two cheques in question encashed, if the same had not already been deposited. Judgment Debtor did not deposit this amount. This order was later on modified by Division Bench in FAO No. 384/2006 and the Division Bench considering the plea of the Judgment Debtor that he was not in a position to deposit the amount of Rs.15 crore by way of Pay Order and considering the offer of Judgment Debtor of selling his property No. 6, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi in public auction, modified the order and appointed a Local Commissioner to take steps for selling the property through public auction and fixed the reserve price of the property at Rs.10 crore. The property however, could not be sold in public auction as the highest offer made in public auction was only Rs.2.02 crore. The Decree Holder again approached this Court and this Court vide order dated 27th April, 2007 restored the order dated 30th March, 2006 of the Single Bench. 3. Against the order dated 27th April, 2007 restoring the order dated 30th March, 2006, the Judgment Debtor filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings before the Single Judge on the condition that the Judgment Debtor shall deposit a sum of Rs.4 crore with the Registrar (Judicial) on or before 10th July, 2007. 3. Against the order dated 27th April, 2007 restoring the order dated 30th March, 2006, the Judgment Debtor filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings before the Single Judge on the condition that the Judgment Debtor shall deposit a sum of Rs.4 crore with the Registrar (Judicial) on or before 10th July, 2007. The Judgment Debtor did not deposit this amount thus, the interim stay was vacated. Later on Judgment Debtor’s Counsel got the SLP dismissed on the ground that it had become infructuous. The Decree Holder in the meantime had filed a contempt petition before this Court for non-compliance of order dated 30th March, 2006. This Contempt Petition was dismissed on the ground that the order was an executable order and no contempt would lie. 4. The Decree Holder thereafter filed the present execution petition and the Judgment Debtor has filed these objections stating that since Decree Holder had already availed the remedy of contempt, the present execution was not maintainable. The other ground against maintainability of the present execution taken is that the order passed by this Court on 30th March, 2006 was a conditional order and Decree Holder had not complied with the condition and the cheques of Rs.41 crore had already been deposited by the Decree Holder thus, the order passed by the Court was not executable. 5. It is apparent from the order dated 30th March, 2006 passed by this Court that the order was based on representation of the Judgment Debtor. The Judgment Debtor had made a representation to the Court that Judgment Debtor was prepared to deposit Rs.7 crore immediately by way of pay order since Decree Holder was not ready to accept only Rs.7 crore against the two cheques issued by Judgment Debtor worth Rs.41 crore, the Court after considering the arguments of both the sides directed Judgment Debtor to deposit Rs.15 crore in the Court and gave directions to the Decree Holder not to deposit the cheques, if the same had not already been deposited. However, the cheques had already been deposited and it is also apparent that the Court was made aware about this fact. Despite this, the Court had passed the order that Judgment Debtor would deposit Rs.15 crore, on the representations of the Judgment Debtor and readiness of Judgment Debtor to deposit Rs.7 crore immediately. However, the cheques had already been deposited and it is also apparent that the Court was made aware about this fact. Despite this, the Court had passed the order that Judgment Debtor would deposit Rs.15 crore, on the representations of the Judgment Debtor and readiness of Judgment Debtor to deposit Rs.7 crore immediately. The facts would show that the Judgment Debtor had taken enormous amount for business from the Decree Holder. The Judgment Debtor had not only been taking the Decree holder for a ride but the entire proceedings so far show that the Judgment Debtor had also taken the Courts for a ride. The Judgment Debtor first made a representation before single bench that he was ready to deposit Rs.7 crore while he did not deposit a single paisa. Against the order of the Single Judge, which was passed after deliberations with the Judgment Debtor’s Counsel and the Decree Holder’s Counsel, the Judgment Debtor preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and gave an impression as if the property of Judgment Debtor at 6, Alipur Road was worth Rs.10 crore and got minimum reserved price fixed at Rs.10 crore. The property did not attract a bidder of more than 2.02 crore ultimately, the order of the Division Bench got vacated and the earlier order of the Single Bench was resorted. Judgment Debtor then approached the Supreme Court where Supreme Court directed Judgment Debtor to deposit only Rs.4 crore. The Judgment Debtor obtained this conditional stay from the Supreme Court and sought time for depositing this Rs.4 crore. After obtaining this conditional stay order Judgment Debtor did not deposit the amount and the stay order was vacated and thereafter Judgment Debtor got the SLP dismissed. It only seems that JD has been thriving on the money of the Decree Holder. Judgment Debtor is prepared to spend money on litigation from one Court to other Court but is not prepared to pay any amount to Decree Holder on whose amount Judgment Debtor is thriving. The objection of JD that the order was not executable is baseless objection. Even an interim order passed by the court after considering the facts of the case and representation of the parties is an executable order. Judgment Debtor had not taken this stand that this order was not executable either before the Division Bench or before the Supreme Court where SLP was filed. Even an interim order passed by the court after considering the facts of the case and representation of the parties is an executable order. Judgment Debtor had not taken this stand that this order was not executable either before the Division Bench or before the Supreme Court where SLP was filed. It was also not the stand of the Judgment Debtor either before the Division Bench or before the Supreme Court that the order was merely a conditional order and it exhausted itself because the cheques of Rs.41 crore issued by the Judgment Debtor were presented by the Decree Holder even before the Judgment Debtor filed suit the for injunction. This plea of the order being conditional order and having exhausted itself has been raised by the Judgment Debtor for the first time. However, the order shows that it was not a conditional order rather the fact of depositing the cheque was brought to the notice of the Court and despite this the Court had directed Judgment Debtor to deposit Rs.15 crore. 6. I, therefore find no force in the objections raised by the Judgment Debtor against execution of the order dated 30th March, 2006. The objection application/petition is hereby dismissed. Ex. P. No. 124/2009 The interim order passed by this Court on 25.5.2009 shall remain in force. List this execution petition before the regular bench where arbitration matters are being taken on 23rd October, 2009.