JAYANTILAL INVESTMENTS Vs. MADHUVIHAR CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present Writ Petition, Petitioner has impugned order dtd. 4/5/2024 passed by learned Executing Court while determining Execution Application No.332 of 2015 in L.C. Suit No.4385 of 1997. The order is appended at Exhibit-T, page No.200 to the Writ Petition. Petitioner is the Judgment Debtor.

(2.) Mr. Shah appears for Petitioner - Judgment Debtor. He would submit there is non-compliance of a previous order dtd. 22/8/2023 passed by the Executing Court and in that view, the impugned order ought not to have been passed. This order dtd. 22/8/2023 is appended at Exhibit-Q, page No.190 of the Writ Petition. He has drawn my attention to the said order. I have perused the same.

(3.) It is seen that learned Executing Court adjourned the matter on 22/8/2023 with a noting that hearing on the objection of the Judgment Debtor contained in the Affidavit dtd. 9/4/2016 under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') is adjourned to the next date i.e. 20/9/2023. According to Mr. Shah, as per the above order, the Executing Court ought to have heard and considered all objections of the Judgment Debtor and recorded its satisfaction on the same. This is alleged to not been done by the Executing Court, according to Petitioner, no further order much less the impugned order could have been passed in the Execution proceedings. However, objections of the Petitioner have been dealt with and decided by the impugned order. It is seen that the affidavit containing objections raised under Order XXI Rule 22 of the CPC filed by the Judgment Debtor - Petitioner is appended at page No.48 of the Writ Petition. Perusal of the same shows that objections raised rather the only sustainable objection that was taken is contained in paragraph Nos.3 to 5 therein. Judgment Debtor would contend that in the above paragraphs it is mentioned that there were certain Chamber Summonses taken out by the Decree Holders i.e. Respondents which were pending. These Chamber Summonses date back to the years 2012 and 2013. However, Mr. Shah would candidly inform the Court that the said Chamber Summonses are all disposed of and in that view of the matter, that specific objection raised in paragraph No.3 of the Affidavit dtd. 9/4/2016 does not survive.