PANKAJ SAINI Vs. K.L. SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/judgement debtor no. 2 has assailed order dtd. 27/11/2025 of the learned execution court, whereby his objection under Sec. 47 CPC to the execution of the money decree was dismissed with cost; and observing that despite having means to pay, the petitioner/judgement debtor no. 2 had opted to ignore the decree, warrants of arrest against him were ordered by way of the impugned order subject to the decree holder taking steps and depositing the subsistence allowance of two weeks.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for petitioner/judgement debtor no. 2, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice. Rather, the present petition is found totally frivolous and filed with the aim to protract the execution proceedings.

(3.) Broadly speaking, in the proceedings for execution of the money recovery decree dtd. 15/3/2016 (modified on 3/5/2017), the present petitioner/judgement debtor no. 2 filed objections under Sec. 47 CPC, claiming that the suit having been filed against partnership firm as defendant no. 1 and the present petitioner as defendant no. 2, the liability of the present petitioner/judgement debtor no. 2 is not joint and several with defendant no. 1 firm, but limited to his 30% profit share in the partnership business. This objection of the petitioner/judgement debtor no. 2 was rejected by way of the detailed order impugned in these proceedings.