AJANTA INFRASTRUCTURES LTD Vs. PENNAR STEELS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order passed in E.A.No.10 of 2007 in E.P.No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur. E.A.No.10 of 2007 in E.P.No.1 of 2007 is a petition filed under Section 47 of CPC r/w 151 CPC seeking indulgence of the Executing Court to dismiss the execution petition. The Decree holder in O.S.No.1159 of 1993 on the file of the Second Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to execute the decree in O.S.No.1159 of 1993 had filed E.P.No.1 of 2007 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur after getting the decree transferred. The decree was a transferred for execution. The petitioner in E.A.No.10 of 2007 in E.P.No.1 of 2007 viz., the Auto Mobile Products of India Limited represented by its Director Vaidyanathan and two others who are the defendants in O.S.No.1159 of 1993 on the file of the Second Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad had challenged the decree on the ground that on the date of passing of the decree in O.S.No.1159 of 1993, B.I.F.R proceedings were pending and under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies(Special Provisions) Act 1985(hereinafter referred to "Act") the decree itself is void and cannot be executed. Even though the said E.A.No.10 of 2007 was filed before the Executing Court under Section 47 of CPC, there was no oral or documentary evidence let in by the petitioner in E.A.No.10 of 2007 in E.P.No.1 of 2007. On the basis of the available materials and after due submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, the learned Executing Court had dismissed the E.A.No.10 of 2007 in E.P.No.1 of 2007 which necessitated the petitioner in E.A.No.10 of 2007 in E.P.No.1 of 2007 to approach this Court by way of this revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on an order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in Case No,36 of 1992 dated 24.10.1997 would contend that the BIFR proceedings against the revision petitioner was pending even on the date of Judgment in O.S.No.1159 of 1993 on the file of the Second Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and hence the decree passed in O.S.No.1159 of 1993 is hit by Section 22 of the Act. This argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was meted out by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent by drawing the attention of this Court to Paragraph 2 of the order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in case No,36 of 92(Page 36 of the typed set of papers) wherein the relevant observation runs as follows:

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on an unreported Judgment in W.P.No,26287 of 2004 dated 19.4.2005 by a learned Judge of this Court would contend that the revision petitioner is entitled to protection under Section 22 of the Ac t. For this , the learned counsel would based his reliance at paragraph 13 of the Judgment in the above writ petition which runs as follows: