C.K. Sharma vs Puneet Gauba and Another

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1 Order impugned is dated 03.02.2012 vide which the objections raised by the judgment debtor that the execution petition is not maintainable for the reason that the decree dated 01.05.2006 has been set aside, had been dismissed and rightly so. Record speaks for itself. There is no dispute to the dates noted in the impugned order. Against the decree dated 01.05.2006, an appeal had been filed; the decree dated 01.05.2006 was set aside; matter had been remanded back to the trial Court for a decision; the application filed by the defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the ''Code'') was taken up for re-hearing; it was dismissed; an appeal was filed against the said order which was also dismissed on 03.10.2008; necessary corollary was that the original decree dated 01.05.2006 stood revived; the order dated 03.10.2008 which was by the first appellate Court endorsing the findings of the trial Judge on the dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code had in fact become final. Even on a specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner on this count, he has no answer. It was in this background that the warrants of attachment had been ordered against the judgment debtor which order has now been impugned before this Court.

In this background, it is clear that this petition is a gross abuse of the process of the Court; it is wastage of its precious time; the proceedings which had emanated after the passing of the decree dated 01.05.2006 all show that after the dismissal of application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code which was right up to the first appellate Court and which order has since attained a finality, decree dated 01.05.2006 stood revived for which execution petition had been filed by the decree holder in which warrants of attachment had been ordered. This petition being vexatious is nothing but to delay the whole process of the Court; it is dismissed with costs of `10,000/-.