MAHESH MAHESHWARI Vs. NIRMA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the legality and correctness of the order dtd. 22/10/2011 passed by the 3rd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad(Rural) Mirzapur in Execution petition No. 11 of 2020, whereby, the executing Court by invoking Sec. 135 of the Evidence Act, directed the petitioner herein to disclose the facts regarding movable and immovable properties of the Company and further directed to disclose the methodologies adopted by the Directors in disposing the property.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners herein have preferred the present petition by invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India, interalia, stating that at the stage of hearing of the Execution petition, the Court could not have invoked Sec. 165 of the Evidence Act and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.

(3.) Mr. Vasim Mansuri, learned advocate appearing for and on behalf of the petitioners submitted that by invoking Sec. 165 of the Evidence Act, the Executing Court directed the present petitioners to disclose the relevant information of the property. By invoking Sec. 165, the learned Court below committed patent illegality as at the stage of hearing of the Execution of the Decree, Court cannot exercise its power. Thus, the error committed by the trail Court is on the face of the record, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.