Himachal Pradesh High Court
Desh Raj vs Shriram City Union Finance Ltd on 18 September, 2017
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 39 of 2017 Reserved on: 13.09.2017 Decided on: 18.09.2017 .
__________________________________________________________ Desh Raj .....Petitioner Versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.
......Respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner : Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondent :
r Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is maintained by the petitioner, against the order dated 03.01.2017, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., in execution petition No. 62/10 of 2016, whereby warrant of attachment against the property of the petitioner, after granting single opportunity to him for filing objections, has been issued.
2. Briefly, the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent filed an execution petition for execution of arbitration award, dated 23.06.2015, in arbitration case No. 2015/HP/18 and during 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 12:37:50 :::HCHP -2-commencement of the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner has been proceeded ex parte. It has been alleged that such award has been passed behind the back .
of the petitioner and he had no knowledge of the arbitration proceedings, as also, he was never supplied the copy of award. It has further been alleged that vide order, dated 15.06.2016 (Annexure P-2), learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P. transferred the above said execution petition to the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. alongwith communication and relevant certificates, under Order 21, Rule 6 CPC. Thereafter, the petitioner was summoned by the learned Court below and was granted opportunity to file objections to the execution petition and further the case was fixed for 03.01.2017 for filing of objections/consideration. It has been alleged that the copy of execution petition was never supplied to the petitioner, however the petitioner though applied for the same through copying agency, but the same could not be prepared since the application for copy made by the petitioner got misplaced, as such, the petitioner could not file objections on the date fixed, thus warrant of ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 12:37:50 :::HCHP -3- attachment against the property of the petitioner has been issued. Hence the present petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties .
and gone through the record in detail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the interest of justice, learned Court below should have granted another opportunity to the petitioner for filing objections/compliance, but the learned Court below, without granting another opportunity to the petitioner, issued warrant of attachment against the property of the petitioner, so the present petition may be allowed and order dated 03.01.2017 be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the learned Court below has granted sufficient opportunity to the petitioner for filing objections/compliance, however in spite that, even on the second date of hearing no objections were filed by the petitioner. He has further argued that the impugned order dated 03.01.2017, passed by learned Court below, is as per law and needs no interference.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it appears that the learned ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 12:37:50 :::HCHP -4- counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor has neither made any request for adjournment of the case, nor has prayed any further time for filing objections/compliance. In .
these circumstances, this Court finds that the order, passed by the learned Court below on 03.01.2017, cannot called to be against the law, as earlier, the learned Court below has granted one opportunity to the petitioner to file objections/compliance in the execution proceedings, as averred by the petitioner. Further the execution petition is pending for approximately one year and in these circumstances also, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Court below is uncalled for.
6. Accordingly, order passed by the learned Court below, is as per law and there is nothing to conclude that the said order is either arbitrary, against the law, capricious or beyond the confines of legitimacy. So, the extraordinary powers conferred upon this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are not required to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. In view of the above enumerated circumstances, the present petition sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 12:37:50 :::HCHP -5- peculiar facts and circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, .
shall also stand(s) disposed of.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
Judge
18th September, 2017
(raman)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 12:37:50 :::HCHP