RAJINDER SINGH Vs. MUKESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dtd. 15/6/2022 vide which the application for stay of execution proceedings during the pendency of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff/decree-holder/respondent filed a suit for recovery against the defendant/judgment-debtor/petitioner which was decreed ex-parte vide judgment and decree dtd. 18/10/2014. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which was allowed by the Court and the suit was restored and the trial began again. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to appear and an ex-parte judgment and decree was passed by the Trial Court against the petitioner on 26/4/2019 for the second time. The respondent herein filed execution against the second judgment and decree dtd. 26/4/2019. Subsequent to the filing of the application for execution, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dtd. 26/4/2019. It is pertinent to note that in the execution proceedings the petitioner filed an application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC on 15/2/2020. The property of the petitioner was put on sale vide order dtd. 27/2/2020. Thereafter the petitioner filed objections before the Executing Court which were dismissed vide order dtd. 11/10/2021. An application for stay of execution was dismissed by the Executing Court on 11/10/2021. Since then the execution is pending for sale of the property of the judgment-debtor petitioner. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of his objections was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on 10/2/2022. Having availed all his remedies in law before the Executing Court, the petitioner filed the present application for stay of the proceedings. It has been noticed in the impugned order dtd. 15/6/2022 that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed on 6/2/2020 and the petitioner herein had been appearing before the Executing Court after the passing of the judgment and decree dtd. 26/4/2019 between the period 26/4/2019 to 6/2/2020. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and holding that the petitioner was playing hide and seek with the Court, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by said order the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is willing to furnish security for the entire decretal amount.