The Managing Director vs Gaja Nand and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 16859-CII of 2013:

Application is allowed and Annexure A-1 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Main Case:

Judgment-debtor (JD) no. 1 - The Managing Director, Hafed has filed this revision petition impugning order dated 24.03.2005 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Executing Court, thereby dismissing objections preferred by the petitioner.

Suit filed by respondent no. 1-plaintiff Gaja Nand was decreed in first appeal vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2000 (Annexure A-1) against petitioner and respondent no. 2 - The General Manager, Hafed Spinning Mill, Hansi to the following effect:-

.....The suit of the plaintiff for declaration succeeds with costs. It is declared that the plaintiff is legally entitled to be regularized as a Clerk with effect from 20.1.86 and to get the salary of a Clerk with effect from 20.1.86 with all arrears and benefits.

Respondent no. 1-decree-holder (DH) filed execution petition for execution of the aforesaid decree, which has been upheld up to Hon''ble Supreme Court. The petitioner raised objections that the petitioner-Hafed is not liable to satisfy the decree because it had taken the Mill-respondent no. 2 on lease and the DH-respondent no. 1 was employee of respondent no. 2 and not of petitioner-Hafed. It was also alleged that respondent no. 2 Mill (a registered Co-operative Society) is under liquidation and official Liquidator was appointed vide order dated 23.03.1999.

Respondent no. 1-DH resisted the objection and controverted the pleas raised by the petitioner-objector.

Learned Executing Court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-5), has dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner-objector, who has therefore filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner-Hafed and respondent no. 2-Spinning Mill are two different entities and respondent no. 1-DH was employee of respondent no. 2-Mill and so, petitioner Hafed is not liable to satisfy the decree. The contention, although apparently attractive, is completely misconceived and meritless. The suit was decreed against both the defendants i.e. petitioner and respondent no. 2. Consequently, both the said JDs (petitioner and respondent no. 2) are liable to satisfy the decree. The Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, which has been upheld up to Hon''ble Supreme Court. It may be added that the alleged liquidation order dated 23.03.1999 appointing official Liquidator for respondent no. 2-Mill was passed before passing of judgment and decree dated 11.10.2000 (Annexure A-1) by the lower appellate court, thereby decreeing the suit of respondent no. 1-plaintiff. Consequently, the said plea cannot be raised in execution proceedings. Any such plea could be raised during the trial of the suit. The Executing Court has taken correct view of the matter on the same lines and has rightly dismissed the objection preferred by the petitioner.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that impugned order of the Executing Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed. Civil Miscellaneous application, if any pending, is disposed of as infructuous.