Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 482 (HP)

Manjeet Singh v. Indusind Bank Ltd.

2014-04-28

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
Judgment : Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral): This petition is instituted against the order dated 18.3.2014 rendered by learned District Judge, Una in Petition No.202/2014. 2. Pertinent facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner/judgment debtor (hereinafter referred to as the “judgment debtor” for the sake of convenience) was proceeded ex-parte on 18.2.2012 in the execution petition No.23/2010. He moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 18.2.2012. 3. According to the averments contained in the application, the judgment debtor was not aware of the execution proceedings. The application was contested by the decree holder. According to the averments contained in the reply, a notice was duly served upon the judgment debtor for 18.2.2012, however, he failed to put in appearance before the executing court. 4. Learned District Judge dismissed the application on 18.3.2014. Hence, this petition. 5. Mr. Pawan Gautam, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that his client is a driver by profession. He used to ply his vehicle between Delhi to Gujarat. His client was not served. 6. An award of Rs.3,88,552/- along with costs was passed against the judgment debtor on 29.12.2008. The execution petition was received by the learned District Judge, Una by way of transfer from the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The certificate that no part to the satisfaction of the decree was done was issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras on 17.6.2010. The original execution petition was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period two years from the date of decree. The execution petition was transferred to the court of learned District Judge, Una, since the place where the judgment debtor used to reside and his property was situated was within the territorial jurisdiction of learned District Judge, Una. 7. The notice in the execution petition was issued to the judgment debtor for 18.2.2012. The judgment debtor was present in the house. He refused to accept the notice. The notice was affixed on a conspicuous place of his house. The Process Server filed his affidavit to this effect. It is in these circumstances, he was produced ex-parte on 18.2.2012. In view of this, plea taken by Mr. Pawan Gautam, learned Advocate, that the judgment debtor was not aware of the execution proceedings deserves rejection. The notice was affixed on a conspicuous place of his house. The Process Server filed his affidavit to this effect. It is in these circumstances, he was produced ex-parte on 18.2.2012. In view of this, plea taken by Mr. Pawan Gautam, learned Advocate, that the judgment debtor was not aware of the execution proceedings deserves rejection. Judgment debtor was duly served, rather he refused to accept the notice. A notice was duly affixed on a conspicuous place of his house. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.