SPARROW TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD Vs. RAVINDER P KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Amit Palekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Respondent in person.

(2.) The challenge in the above Appeal is to an Order dated 04.06.2012 passed by the learned District Judge in Execution No. 73/2010.

(3.) Briefly, it is the case of the Appellants that the Respondent no. 1 filed a Civil Suit bearing no. 201/2006 in the Court of the learned District Judge at Delhi and joined the Respondent nos. 2 to 4 as Defendants. The Director of the Appellants was named as Director of the Respondent no. 2 and the address of service of summons was shown as that of the Appellants. It is further contended that Mr. Rajiv Sarda was not even the Director of the Respondent no. 2 against whom the said Suit was filed as on the date of the filing of the suit. But, however, the suit proceeded showing the name of Mr. Rajiv Sarda as the Director of the Respondents wrongly. The suit was discreet and the Respondent no. 2-Company was directed to pay the decretal amount to the Respondent no. 1 with interest. But, however, according to the Appellants, there was no decree against the Appellants nor Mr Rajiv Sarda. An Application for Execution of the transfer Decree was filed in the Court of the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, at Margao. In such proceedings, an averment was made to state that the Decree can be executed as against the Appellants which in fact, according to the Appellants, has no relation with the Respondent no. 2 against whom the Decree was obtained. The learned District Judge passed a Garnishee Order whereby M/s. Safe Express Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Tecknic Controls were directed to deposit the rent payable to the Appellants in terms of the lease executed between them, before the Court for the satisfaction of the Decree. An Appeal challenging such Order dated 06.12.2010 was allowed and consequently such Order was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the Court to decide afresh. It is further contended that the learned District Judge by Order dated 21.01.2012 allowed the application and permitted the Respondent no. 1 to withdraw the amount of money deposited by the Petitioners without examining that the Appellant has nothing to do with the Respondent no. 2.