Divisional Manager, H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd vs Brij Lal

Sandeep Sharma, J

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 18.8.2021, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, whereby execution petition having been filed by petitioner/Decree Holder came to be rejected for non-prosecution under Order XXI, rule 17 (1-A) CPC, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and grant one opportunity to furnish list of properties in terms of Order XXI, rule II CPC.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same. Careful perusal of impugned order reveals that repeatedly matter was adjourned for five years, enabling the petitioner to furnish list of properties of the respondent/judgment debtor enabling the learned executing Court to pass appropriate orders for attachment of the properties but since no steps were taken for more than five years, learned executing Court had no option but to dismiss the execution petition in terms of provision of order XXI, rule 17(1-A) CPC, for non-prosecution.

Though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade this court to agree with his contention that list of properties could not be furnished for the reason beyond the control of the petitioner but having taken note of the fact that even the present petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of two years, this court has reasons to presume and believe that the petitioner/Decree Holder has been not only negligent and callous in pursuing the execution but has no intention to proscute the petition further. Though impugned order was passed on 18.8.2021, but the present petition has been filed in June, 2023.

Though, Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the delay was on account of objections raised by Registry but he was unable to dispute that petition at hand was filed in June, 2023, meaning thereby there is already inordinate delay of one year and ten months in filing the present petition.

In view of above, this court sees no reason to entertain the present petition and same is dismissed on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. All pending applications also stand disposed of.