Partly allowed

Sunita Bajaj v. State Bank of India and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jan 2010CR/426/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged execution proceedings despite pending set-aside and stay applications against the underlying ex parte decree. The High Court permitted sale proceedings but directed that confirmation be withheld until the stay application is decided.

What did the court decide?

Sale proceedings allowed to continue but confirmation of sale stayed pending decision on petitioner's stay application.

Sunita Bajaj Vs State Bank of India and Anr. — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CR No.426 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 22.1.2010

¶3

Smt. Sunita Bajaj

¶4

......Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Bank of India and another

¶7

......Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶9

¶10

Present: Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)

¶12

CM No.1544-CII of 2010

¶13

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

CR No.426 of 2010

¶15

As per averments made in this petition, an ex parte decree dated 19.4.2007 for recovery of Rs.4,80,288/- along with interest @ 12% with quarterly rests from the date of institution of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount was passed in favour of respondent No.1 and against the petitioner.

¶16

Respondent No.1 filed an execution application for execution of aforesaid decree in the Court of Civil Judge( Sr. Division), Amritsar.

¶17

It is the case of the petitioner that after service of the notice in execution petition, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 19.4.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Amritsar along with an application for staying the aforesaid execution proceedings, and the same are pending and now stand fixed for 22.2.2010.

¶18

It has been further submitted that in the execution proceedings, vide order dated 3.12.2009, the property of the petitioner has been put to sale which is scheduled to be held on 8.2.2010.

¶19

CR No.426 of 2010(O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that in spite of the fact that applications for staying of execution proceedings and for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree are pending before the same Court, the Court is further proceeding in the execution proceedings without deciding the applications for stay and setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as aforesaid, let the proceedings of sale continue. However, the aforesaid proceedings of the sale shall not be confirmed till the decision on the application filed by the petitioner for staying the execution against him.

¶23

Disposed of.

¶24

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

¶25

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶26

January 22, 2010 ps

Sunita Bajaj v. State Bank of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Bajaj v. State Bank of India and Anr.

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

Angrejo Devi and Others Vs Narender Singh and Others

D H B v N Ltd. and Anr. Vs Amarjit Singh Chadha

Harvinder Singh Vs Ishar Singh

Samunder Singh and Anr. Vs Dalbir Singh

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs Ram Niwas

Sheela & Ors. Vs Kasturi Lal