Allowed

Municipal Council, Sonepat v. Deepak Co-Operative Society

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Nov 2009CR/6335/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the petitioner's petition in limine, setting aside an order issuing warrants of attachment. Directed the Executing Court to reconsider objections afresh upon production of documentary evidence regarding payment of the decretal amount.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 3 October 2009 issuing warrant of attachment against petitioner's property is set aside; Executing Court directed to consider objections afresh.

Municipal Council, Sonepat Vs Deepak… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.R. No. 6335 of 2009 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH.

¶4

C.R. No. 6335 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision: November 3, 2009

¶6

Municipal Council, Sonepat

¶7

…..Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Deepak Cooperative Society

¶10

…..Respondent

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶12

-.-

¶13

Present:Mr.Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

-.-

¶15

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶16

The petitioner is a judgment debtor Municipal Council, Sonepat whose objection that the decretal amount has already been paid, has been dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated October 3, 2009 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary proof regarding the decretal amount having been paid, persuaded by the order passed by the predecessor of the Executing Court by virtue of which warrant of attachment of the property owned by the petitioner has been issued.

¶17

C.R. No. 6335 of 2009 [2]

¶18

The objector being a Municipal Council claiming to have made the payments through cheque, should have been given a fair opportunity to establish that the decretal amount stands paid. Even otherwise, it is the duty of the Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 23 (2) CPC to fairly consider the objections filed by the judgment debtor in execution proceedings.

¶19

The petition is allowed in limine and the order dated October 3, 2009 issuing warrants of attachment against the property of the petitioner is set aside and a direction is given to the Executing Court to consider the objections afresh in the light of the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. In case the Executing Court arrives at a conclusion that the money decree has not been satisfied, it will be open to the Executing Court to pass fresh orders of attachment of property. It is made clear that in case any such attachment order is passed, it will be open to the petitioner to file objections to the attachment as per provisions of Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. In case of dismissal of objections, the remedy of appeal under Order 21 Rule 58 (4) CPC would be available to the petitioner. It is ordered that the entire exercise of adjudication of the objections Annexure P-2, will be completed within a period of one month and the same would be disposed of by a speaking order after giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner.

¶20

Order dasti on payment of usual charges.

¶21

November 3, 2009 sanjay

¶22

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE

Municipal Council, Sonepat v. Deepak Co-Operative Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Council, Sonepat v. Deepak Co-Operative Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahipal Singh Vs Rajesh Kumar

Bota Singh Alias Sandeep Singh Vs Mohinder Singh

Kanwaljit Kaur Vs Manjeet Pal Singh

Agroha Vikas Trust Agroha Vs Ram Bilas and Ors.

Giani Ram Vs Devender Singh and Ors.

Gurudwara Sahib Tenth Guru Vs Gram Panchayat, Mahi Nangal