Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The appeal thereafter could not be taken up for hearing owing to the prevalent pandemic. The respondent no.1/decree holder applied for listing the appeal for virtual hearing and which application came up before this Court on 19th June, 2020 and was allowed and the counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pavan Sachdeva of the respondent no.1/decree holder heard on the appeal, on that date itself. However after some hearing it was felt that neither was ready with all the requisite information and law and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to today.

4. Being prima facie of the opinion that the appellant could not be made a judgment debtor in the execution petition against the respondent no.2/judgment debtor Krishan Lal Monga & Co., when there was no decree against the appellant and that the appellant, as judgment debtor could not be directed to file affidavit of assets, we have called upon Mr. Pavan Sachdeva of the respondent no.1/decree holder to address us first.

5. Mr. Pavan Sachdeva states that he has yesterday filed documents running into 43 pages and it is his contention, that (i) the respondent no.2/judgment debtor Krishan Lal Monga & Co. was the sole proprietary of one Krishan Lal Monga and owned a share/ticket of DSE and was a stock broker of DSE; (ii) Krishan Lal Monga died in or about the year 1989 and whereupon his son Parjinder Monga got himself substituted with DSE as sole proprietor of respondent no.2/judgment debtor Krishan Lal Monga & Co. and continued to carry on business in the name and style of Krishan Lal Monga & Co. as a stock broker of DSE; (iii) respondent no.2/judgment debtor Krishan Lal Monga & Co. entered into an Agreement dated 10th January, 1995 with the respondent no.1/decree holder, whereunder the respondent no.2/judgment debtor Krishan Lal Monga & Co. agreed to underwrite the public issue of the share of respondent no.1/decree holder;

14. We have also enquired, whether all the said questions are to be decided in execution or ought to have been decided in the proceedings leading to execution.

15. Mr. Pavan Sachdeva states that he was not aware of all the said facts earlier. He also states that he be permitted to file a fresh application before the Single Judge, justifying the claim of the decree holder against the appellant.

16. The counsel for the appellant also is agreeable thereto subject to the impugned order being set aside and all defences of the appellant to the future attempt if any of the respondent no.1 / decree holder to claim the decretal amount from the appellant, are kept open, and to which Mr. Pavan Sachdeva is agreeable.