This petition under Article 227 challenged an order issuing a warrant of attachment after a single opportunity to object in execution proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding the order legal as the petitioner did not request an adjournment or further time.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 39 of 2017 Reserved on: 13.09.2017 Decided on: 18.09.2017
__________________________________________________________ Desh Raj …..Petitioner Versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. ……Respondent ___________________________________________________ Coram_ The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge
The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is maintained by the petitioner, against the order dated 03.01.2017, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., in execution petition No. 62/10 of 2016, whereby warrant of attachment against the property of the petitioner, after granting single opportunity to him for filing objections, has been issued. 2. Briefly, the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent filed an execution petition for execution of arbitration award, dated 23.06.2015, in arbitration case No. 2015/HP/18 and during
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
commencement of the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner has been proceeded ex parte. It has been alleged that such award has been passed behind the back of the petitioner and he had no knowledge of the arbitration proceedings, as also, he was never supplied the copy of award. It has further been alleged that vide order, dated 15.06.2016 (Annexure P-2) , learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P. transferred the above said execution petition to the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. alongwith communication and relevant certificates, under Order 21, Rule 6 CPC. Thereafter, the petitioner was summoned by the learned Court below and was granted opportunity to file objections to the execution petition and further the case was fixed for 03.01.2017 for filing of objections/consideration. It has been alleged that the copy of execution petition was never supplied to the petitioner, however the petitioner though applied for the same through copying agency, but the same could not be prepared since the application for copy made by the petitioner got misplaced, as such, the petitioner could not file objections on the date fixed, thus warrant of
attachment against the property of the petitioner has been issued. Hence the present petition.
and going through the record, it appears that the learned
counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor has neither made any request for adjournment of the case, nor has prayed any further time for filing objections/compliance. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the order, passed by the learned Court below on 03.01.2017, cannot called to be against the law, as earlier, the learned Court below has granted one opportunity to the petitioner to file objections/compliance in the execution proceedings, as averred by the petitioner. Further the execution petition is pending for approximately one year and in these circumstances also, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Court below is uncalled for.
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case parties are left
to bear their own costs.
shall also stand(s) disposed of.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge
18th September, 2017
(raman)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 when the trial court issued a warrant of attachment after granting a single opportunity to file objections in an execution petition.
Whether the impugned order of the learned District Judge is arbitrary, against the law, or beyond the confines of legitimacy.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Desh Raj
Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
