[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Raj Motors vs Rajkumar Huf on 9 April, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:15758]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 26/2025
1. Raj Motors, Kutchery Road, Ajmer, Through Its Partners,
Vijay Garg And Renu Garg.
2. Vijay Garg S/o Ramlal Garg, Resident Of Above The
Active Workshop, Opposite Saumangalya Wedding Place,
Civil Lines, Ajmer, Both Partners, Raj Motors, Kutchery
Road, Ajmer.
3. Renu Garg W/o Vijay Garg, Resident Of Above The Active
Workshop, Opposite Saumangalya Wedding Place, Civil
Lines, Ajmer, Both Partners, Raj Motors, Kutchery Road,
Ajmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajkumar Huf, Through Its Karta, Shri. Rajkumar Lalwani, S/o
Shri Swaroopchand Lalwani, R/o 4B, Ashok Vihar,vaishali Nagar,
Ajmer.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Mittal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Reashm Bhargava, Adv.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment :: 09/04/2025
This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-
judgment debtors (for short ‘the judgment debtors’) under Section
115 CPC in Civil Execution No.66/2024 against the order dated
14.01.2025 passed by Commercial Court, Ajmer whereby the
application filed by the judgment debtors for making the payment
of decretal amount in the installment of Rs. 50,000/- per month
has been dismissed.
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 12:35:54 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:15758] (2 of 5) [CR-26/2025]
Learned counsel for the judgment debtors submits that
respondent-decree holder-plaintiff (for short ‘the decree’ holder-
plaintiff) filed a suit against the judgment debtors-defendants
under Order 37 CPC. The said suit filed by the decree holder-
plaintiff was decreed on 06.12.2021. Decree holder-plaintiff filed
execution petition against the judgment debtors-defendants in
which judgment debtors-defendants filed objections under Section
47 read with Section 151 CPC.
Learned counsel for the judgment debtors-defendants
submits that judgment debtors-defendants furnished security as
per the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the trial court. In
objections, judgment debtors-defendants stated that when the
Judgment Debtors-defendants had already furnished security, the
said properties cannot be attached and sold but the executing
court while passing the impugned order observed that the said
security was not sufficient to satisfy the decree.
Learned counsel for the judgment debtors-defendants also
submits that the judgment debtors-defendants filed application for
making the payment of decretal amount in the installment of
Rs.50,000/- per month but the executing court arbitrarily
dismissed the same.
Learned counsel for the judgment debtors-defendants further
submits that executing court had committed an error in attaching
all the properties of the judgment debtors-defendants. If these
properties are put to an auction for realization of the decretal
amount then the judgment debtors-defendants would suffer
irreparable injury. When the judgment debtors-defendants had
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 12:35:54 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:15758] (3 of 5) [CR-26/2025]
already paid part of the decretal amount, time ought to have been
given to them.
Learned counsel for the judgment debtors-defendants has
placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Ambati
Narasayya Vs. M. Subba Rao and Ors. in Civil Appeal
No.4195 of 1989 decided on 06.10.1989; (2) K. Vijayakumar
Vs. N. Gururaja Rao in CRP No.6243 of 2003 decided on
13.04.2004;
Learned counsel for the decree holder-plaintiff has opposed
the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the judgment
debtors-defendants and submitted that judgment debtors-
defendants wanted to delay the execution proceedings and they
had not fully complied with the order of the court. They deposited
the demand draft of Rs.3,00,000/- in one matter. Learned counsel
for the decree holder-plaintiff also submits that it is a prerogative
of the executing court to satisfy the decree of the decree holder-
plaintiff by auctioning the properties of the judgment debtors-
defendants. If judgment debtors-defendants had any bona fide
intention then they could have deposited the entire decretal
amount before the executing court and the executing court would
have released the property. So, order of the executing court does
not want any interference. So, the present petition filed by the
judgment debtors-defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the decree holder-plaintiff has placed
reliance upon the following judgments:
(1) V. Ramaswami Naidu and Ors Vs. Syndicate Bank
reported in AIR 1978 Madras 238;
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 12:35:54 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:15758] (4 of 5) [CR-26/2025]
(2) Satish Minocha Vs. Punjab National Bank and Anr.
reported in AIR 1983 Madhya Pradesh 42;
(3) Khadar Baba Fancy Stores, Visakhapatnam Vs. G.P. Chit
Funds Private Ltd,. Visakhapatnam & Ors reported in AIR
2008 Andhra Pradesh 274;
(4) Sher Alam Vs. United Bank of India reported in AIR 1993
Gauhati;
(5) Jatti Krishnareddy Vs. Bhadri Ramagopalaiah reported in
AIR 1985 Andhra Pradesh 49;
(6) Central Bank of India, Kutch Vs. M/s. P.R. Garments
Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surendranagar and Ors reported in AIR
1986 Gujarat 113;
(7) United Bank of Inida Vs. The New Glencoe Tea Co. Ltd.,
reported in AIR 1987 Calcutta 143;
(8) Gandharv Steel and Ors Vs. Central Bank of India
reported in 2001 (103) Company Cases 612;
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the judgment debtors-defendants as well as learned
counsel for the decree holder-plaintiff.
It is an admitted position that suit filed by the decree holder-
plaintiff was decreed by the trial court. The judgment debtors-
defendants do not want to honour the decree. So, executing court
had no option except to attach the property of the judgment
debtors-defendants for satisfaction of the decree. The contention
of the judgment debtors-defendants that executing court could
satisfy the decree from the security furnished to the trial Court
during trial and when part payment was made by the judgment
debtors-defendants, time ought to have been given, is not tenable
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 12:35:54 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:15758] (5 of 5) [CR-26/2025]
because the said security is not sufficient for satisfaction of the
decree. So, in my considered opinion, the executing court has
rightly dismissed the application filed by the judgment debtors-
defendants. So, the present petition filed by the judgment
debtors-defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be
dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
AVINASH GULERIA /135
(Downloaded on 26/04/2025 at 12:35:54 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link