Sanjeev Chanana vs J. S. Vohra

Manoj Jain, J

Learned counsel for respondent/decree holder submits that she does not want to delay her execution petition. She submits that in order to realize the decretal amount, the execution petition was filed before the learned Executing Court.

She admits that decree was directed against the company only and, to ascertain the assets of the JD company, the process was issued to the petitioner who is Director of JD company.

Since the directions given by the learned Executing Court were not appropriately adhered to by the petitioner, the learned Executing Court was compelled to issue coercive process against him.

She submits that she would have no objection if the non-bailable warrants are recalled with condition that he would appear before the learned Executing Court and would file affidavit in terms of the directions given by

the learned Executing Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no intention to not participate in the proceedings of the abovesaid execution petition and the petitioner would appear before the learned Executing Court and would also adhere to the directions to be passed in this regard by the learned Executing Court.

The next date before the learned Executing Court is stated to be 12.09.2025.

In view of the aforesaid, while setting aside the non-bailable warrants

issued against the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to petitioner to, punctually, appear before the learned Executing Court and to file affidavit, if any, in terms of the earlier directions given by the learned Executing Court and to adhere to the further directions to be passed by the learned Executing Court.

The amount deposited in the present proceedings shall not be released to anyone till further orders.

The present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

Pending application, if any, stand disposed of.

A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master.