Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

State Bank Of India Thr. vs Harsh Wood Product Pvt. Ltd. Thr. on 21 March, 2018

            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        CR-194-2018
           (STATE BANK OF INDIA THR. Vs HARSH WOOD PRODUCT PVT. LTD. THR.)


  1
  Gwalior, Dated : 21-03-2018
        Mrs. Shobha Manon, learned senior counsel with Shri M.P.
  Agarwal, Advocate for petitioners/revisionists/Bank.
        Heard on admission as well as IA No. 1444/2018, an application
  for grant of stay.




                                                              sh
        The present Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of




                                                        e
  Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the




                                                     ad
  petitioners/revisionists/State Bank of India being crestfallen by the

                                               Pr
  order dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure A/1) passed by the VIIth
  Additional District Judge, Gwalior, whereby, review application
                                      a
                                    hy

  preferred by the petitioners has been rejected and order dated
  05.12.2017 (Annexure A/2) passed by the same Court has been
                              ad



  maintained.
                     M




        According to learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners,
  the judgment and decree passed in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs have
                  of




  been set aside by Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated
            rt




  17.05.2013 (Annexure A/5). The said judgment and decree has been
      ou




  passed in a manner, wherein, counter claim of the respondents which

was earlier rejected by the Trial Court has been virtually allowed. C Although, SLP preferred at the instance of present petitioners bore no h result as it got dismissed in limini, still the question of jurisdictional ig error committed by Appellate Court was available to the petitioners to H raise even before Executing Court. The Executing Court proceeded further and caused illegality and perversity while not considering the submissions of the petitioners and proceeded with the execution of the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court (which suffered from jurisdictional error), therefore, said decree could not have been executed.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee through Ordinary as well as Registered A.D. mode within three working days. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

As an interim measure, till next date of hearing, effect and operation of the impugned orders dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure R-1) and 05.12.2017 (Annexure R/2) shall remain stayed.

List immediately after four weeks. Certified copy today.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE esh (LJ*) ad Digitally signed by LOKENDRA Pr JAIN Date: 2018.03.21 15:10:16 +05'30' a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H