Sh Pankaj Kumar Jain v. Sh Praveen Kumar Jain
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Delhi recorded that the execution petition was filed for a suit with a value below the Court's enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction. Finding the petition filed in violation of an Office Order restricting such filings, the Court rejected it, allowing the petitioner to approach the Court of appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction.
What did the court decide?
Execution petition rejected; liberty granted to approach Court of appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction.
What the court decided
$~13
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- EX.P. 144/2016 SH PANKAJ KUMAR JAIN ..... Decree Holder Through: Mr. Mohit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Versus
- SH PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN ..... Judgement Debtor Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
- O R D E R
- % 03.11.2016
- Execution is sought of the order dated 9th August, 2010 of dismissal of a suit for specific performance imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- on the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant / execution petitioner.
- Admittedly, the value of the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction was less than the enhanced minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.
- This execution filed in this Court inspite of Office Order dated 24th November, 2015 of Hon‟ble the Chief Justice in exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 is misconceived and is rejected with liberty to the petitioner / decree-holder to approach the Court of appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an execution petition filed for a suit valued below the enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction limit of this Court is maintainable.
Whether the execution petition filed in contravention of the Office Order dated 24th November, 2015 is misconceived.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sh Pankaj Kumar Jain
- respondent
Sh Praveen Kumar Jain
Coram
Rajiv Sai Endlaw
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court